|
|
Sigh. Bunch of pussies. |
|
|
|
|
Spunk, you're a bigger hypocrite than William Bennett. |
|
wtf with this truth. bush is only taking credit for top level leadership. |
This is a many-layered offense -- to the traditions and integrity (such that remains) of the American political process, to the firefighters and police officers who did not give their lives so that Bush could later use their deaths to get a bounce in the polls, to every American citizen who doesn't drink Karl Rove's Kool-Aid, and to plain decency. http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/04/tomasky-m-04-30.html |
So why, 9 months after Bush took office, did the military kick serious ass in Afghanistan? It's hard arguing against lies. I'm wasting my time. |
fucking commie flag burners. |
|
because we still funded the military and the military was still working at making itself better. i see the strength of the military credited to the american people, not any president. why are you such a doof? you think clinton had anything to do with the power of our military? |
Not particularly, but the Bush 2000 campaign did. And, so did you: "By Nate on Tuesday, May 6, 2003 - 01:39 pm: doesn't the article say it really had nothing to do with clinton, either? what kind of retard would think the quality of the miltary had anything to do with a man who cut defense spending throughout his career?" What do you mean by "the quality of the miltary had anything to do with a man who cut defense spending throughout his career?" |
cutting defense spending does directly affect the effectiveness of a military force. It had nothing to do with the QUALITY of training, only the QUANTITY of training. The work horse of afganistan was the B-52, a 50 year old bomber. the bombs it dropped were in development under clinton, but they were not his idea. The morale of the military was exremely low. It did get better under Bush, but before 9/11, he did not give them as much of an increased as he had promised, and the military was begining to feel betrayed. Rumsfeld is still trying to reduce the size of the Army. Which is fine. But Nate is right and wrong. Regardless of the President, our troops have the skills and the equipment. Determination and inspiration makes up the difference. |
yeah, put your reading comprehension glasses on and try again, tiggy. |
|
What do you mean by "the quality of the miltary had anything to do with a man who cut defense spending throughout his career?" |
is what i said. in other words, before you even get to whether or not the president has anything to do with the quality of the military, what kind of mental defect would be required to assume that a president who hamstringed the american miltary's budget was beneficial to the american military? |
|
|
|
i think budget slashed could hurt it... |
Who is this "president who hamstringed the american miltary's budget" you speak of? |
i pointed out that clinton cut the budget. i didn't make any conclusions. but fuck it, it is just as pointless to answer your questions as it is to let you figure out your misconstructions on your own. |
btw, what's your definition of "is"? |
What does 'hamstringed' imply, then? |
i find it funny that when you are not making inane arguments and otherwise acting like a complete and total dolt, you are accusing others of doing that very thing. so left wing you are. |
|
i believe Rumsfeld has openly said he wants to trim up the military...meaning to make cuts here and there as well reward defense sector....er...i mean as spend more over there. |
if you can go back and figure out what the point of this was, let me know. i'll point you to where i addressed it. |
You apparently only pay attention to the points you want to, or you'd know that. It's obvious from the article. Thanks for showing me how biased you can be, Nate. |
I think he failed the military with his cuts. Whether or not he crippled them is irrelevant. He failed them and their families and their homes and the towns surrounding them. |
|
the only indicator that ive seen that Clinton "crippled the morale" is that every right wing fucko has been saying that over and over and people have assumed it as fact. Clinton made cuts in *RELATIVE* peace time. He didnt render the military ineffective, he didnt cut vital programs or hinder the technological drive. He reduced bases and trimmed up the excess, something that Rumsfeld has said he is aiming to do and has done already. So shut you're fucking pie and stop regurgitating partyline bullshit. If you have no other evidence to Clinton's morale bashing on the military bring it on, otherwise there is nothing in this. |
the point has nothing to do with whether or not Clinton crippled the military. stop being such an arrogant fuck. |
It is about the feelings of the people effected by his actions. The way they strove to keep their families together, thinking they had it done, to find out that they had to leave it all behind, not for war, but cuz he wanted to close the base. It isn't the military's job to support a town or a nation. It isn't their job to build it up and halp keep it economically strong. It isn't their job to make sure that there are good schools. That is the president's job. In many towns he failed miserably. I know. I was there. I was a part of it. I saw it with my own eyes. And not in just one place. In many. I saw and was part of the damage to our nation that was inflicted on us when he closed down so many military bases. We are more vulnerable than you think. It's just that the whole world doesn't know exactly how vulnerable we are. Clinton failed when he cut back as much as he did. At the very least he failed my friends and my hometown. This is not partyline propaganda. This is my life and my personal experiences. This was my home, the home that, thanks to his actions, I can never go back to and expect to provide my children with a decent life. |
i don't think i have to to spell this out you. the military is not responsible for the feelings of individuals affected by budget reorganization and cuts. frankly, none of your emotional dribble has anything to do with Clinton or the military. So...you know....you can judge a former President for something he isnt responsible for if you like. god....the way you mix emotion into politics......holy cow.....your like an furnace of liberal pansy-ism. |
|
"He failed them and their families and their homes and the towns surrounding them. " and then go on to say this: "It isn't the military's job to support a town or a nation. It isn't their job to build it up and halp keep it economically strong. It isn't their job to make sure that there are good schools. That is the president's job. In many towns he failed miserably. I know. I was there. I was a part of it. I saw it with my own eyes. And not in just one place. In many. I saw and was part of the damage to our nation that was inflicted on us when he closed down so many military bases. We are more vulnerable than you think. It's just that the whole world doesn't know exactly how vulnerable we are." you contradict yourself completely to the point that all im reading is emotional dribble. |
Since I made the point in the first place it's really ironic that you're simultaneuosly telling me what my point is and calling me arrogant. You can't discuss things rationally anymore, Nateypoo. |
|
the first point on this thread was made By Nate on Tuesday, May 6, 2003 - 01:39 pm. and my point was that Clinton had nothing to do with the success of the military. which has nothing to do with whether or not Clinton crippled the military. why can't you just admit that you're talking around your foot? |
venom without ideas. how stereotypically liberal. |
Clinton did what was best for the military. If you choose to associate those actions with the well-being of local economies...you are in effect tying the two together. |
which has nothing to do with whether or not Clinton crippled the military." How can you contradict yourself so easily and not see it? So, the only way Clinton affected the military was was bad? He had no positive affect whatsoever on the military? He was only responsible for their failures and not for their successes? Am I getting you right? |
2. Clinton's actions against the military, such as budget cuts, demonstrates his attitude towards the strength of the military. 3. You'd have to be retarded to believe that someone with the attitude in (2) should be creditied with success as described in (1). clear, tiggles? i have two independant variables here. your lies and miscontructions are plain as day to anyone who reads this thread. |
thats subjective as hell. |
Yep. You summed it up. He is responsible for the failures, but the military themselves are responsible for their successes which had nothing to do with him. You think that Clinton cutting back on the military was a good thing. I totally disagree and think he hurt us more than he helped us. It has nothing to do with our military success in Afganistan. Our military will always do their best to rise to success no matter what is thrown at them, and Clinton threw shit at them. He not only closed bases that maybe weren't neccesary at the time, but he sold them of so when they become neccesary in the future, too bad, they are already sold to someone else. He has done damage that we cannot repair without more money going toward the military than he saved during these "peaceful" times. He fucked over the long run, and fucked over economies in primarily military areas that were built specifically to support military families, and he fucked over the military men he just got rid of leaving them away from their homes and their families in a now failing economy with little recourse. Clinton is responsible for all military failures of that time frame, they were his in the making. He is not responsible for their successes, cuz he didn't do it, they did. Get it now? |
He did make a promise in 1995 to devote federal funds to help those communities effected by base closing. |
|
It is still a haven for petty drug dealers, Equinox sales reps, people on disability or some other gaurenteed income. |
Fayetteville, NC, where my in-laws live has always been a generally poor town with all kinds of meth and crack problems. You could argue that in FACT, its the military's presence that perpetuates this. Take a drive in Fayetteville and there's nothing but strip malls, liqour stores, gun shops and strip clubs because of the military's presence. There's really nothing else to the town BUT the military. Maybe that was the problem with military towns that have since suffered because of necessary budget cuts...there was nothing but the military. City leadership should recognize that and maybe its a hard lesson to learn, to not be reliant on one sole industry. Don't forget, the military is dominated by teenage males who are just leaving home for the first time also. For whats its worth...Fayetteville is also an epicenter for the Aryan Nation. There are way too many links between military and white power groups its disgusting. |
Do you believe he gets any credit for military successes while he was in office? And, do you believe that the military, a huge organization, can change so quickly as to be completely different in nine months time? You must believe that to think that Clinton's affect on the military was nonexistant by Afghanistan. Do you believe Clinton was responsible for the intelligence failures that led to 9/11? If so, why? How does that relate to your attitude towards his affect on the military? "2. Clinton's actions against the military, such as budget cuts, demonstrates his attitude towards the strength of the military." Like patrick said, completely subjective. You're actually using that as the basis for an argument? And you call psychology unscientific? "3. You'd have to be retarded to believe that someone with the attitude in (2) should be creditied with success as described in (1). " You could have replaced (2) with "Clinton is an asshole" and it would have had the same validity. You give absolutely no evidence for (1). So, you'd have to be retarded to create this "argument" in the first place. "i have two independant variables here." Yeah. I'd say they're independant of reality. |
The military does have a direct impact on local economy. Adalanto is now a ghost town of drug dealers and petty thiefs, George WAS Adalanto. Mortgages had to be forclosed, etc. Not to mention, does anyone remember how long it took to get the Apaches ready to deploy to Kosovo (I think it was Kosovo)? 4-6 weeks, when policy was at the time 90% of the force must be combat ready at all times. After he lauched the attack in Sudan, he did not authorize the military to replish their stock. I just watched a bunch of missiles be restocked for the first time in years here just a few weeks ago. |
|
However, the military is not responsible for it either. the military's role is defense. Yes, if a president is going to go and do things to the military that could have impacts on the economies of many others, he should be prepared, at least politically, to deal with the adverse effects. Whether or not Clinton actually did what he said he would do....i have no idea, at leats in this particular realm and thus far neither of you...eri...spunk....have brought anything to the table to say he did or didnt. To say Clinton is responsible for the economic hardship of so many is to neglect the potential ill effects of keeping the military untrimmed with excess. Whether or not your AFB was restocked with missles after Clinton emptied the cache doesnt really mean a damn thing. |
see how the laisse faire (sp?) posse handles that. |
|
Was there not a HUGE outcry for "corporate responsibility" that asked that very question? "the military's role is defense. " No disagreement there. The economy is not the role, but that does not nullify it's effects. |
Generally, you bet. But as patrick is fond of point out to me, it is not as black and white as that. |
|
|
Since 1990, the Air Force has declined from 36 active and reserve fighter wings to 20, downsizing 44 percent while experiencing a simultaneous four-fold increase in operational commitments. As this article is being written, U.S. pilots are flying missions over Yugoslavia in planes as old as their parents. In many cases they are paying for spare parts out of their own pockets." |
|
Yes. Were you asking too? |
He did absolutely NOTHING for the towns that were effected by the close of George AFB and one other unnamed base in the area. NOTHING. Not a goddamned thing. No help for the cities (there are 4 towns there based around the military bases and before the base there was nothing but desert). There was no help for the poverty stricken, no help for the educational system, no new businesses of ANY KIND. Since the closing of the bases the entire area is taken over by drug dealers and the only people who can afford to survive there are getting permanent money from the government (welfare, social security disability). The few small businesses that are out there are not regulated for labor practices and are horrid to the minimum wage employees who stick with it because there is no other option for them. The areas surrounding Fort Ord didn't have these dire consequences because of the fact that they have a huge fishing community there and canneries, so they didn't go under, but they didn't see a dime either, didn't get any help either. Clinton failed. "Clinton was not the root of the success (favorable or desired outcome) of the military post-Clinton." Do you believe he gets any credit for military successes while he was in office?" No, nor does any president in office. It is the men and women in uniform who get the credit for military successes. They are the ones who did the work, instead of sitting at a desk and giving orders. They (people of the military) are the reasons for military successes. It isn't the president who did the work, it isn't the president who is the "hero" with the successful outcome. When a child succeeds in school, does the credit go to the administrator of the school? No, the credit goes to the child who did the work to do well, and the teacher who gave them proper guidance. The teachers of our military men and women are military men and women themselves. The military gets credit for military successes. Not the president. |
Depends again on the technology he intends to replace it with. The system he killed right of the bat needed to go. And No, i was not aksing too. I have to admit, if I had been laid off and unable to find work, then I would probably have been. I was listening to the radio on the way to work a couple of days ago, and I had heard a report that was talking about businesses trying to strike down lawsuits that held the company liable for it's employee's actions. This company (I am not sure which one) said they were not responsible for the actions of the employees. I think that is crap, they are very much responsible for any actions employees take in the companie's name, with or without the companie's consent. They need to keep a closer eye on what the employee is doing. To me THAT is corporate responsibility. |
Should a teacher's pay be dependent on their student's test scores? |
I'll remind you of that when the next election comes around. Bush will try to take credit for the performance of the military. Does he deserve it? |
Maybe for sending them to afgan and iraq, which he deserves credit for, but not military performance. |
|
|
|
I said that. Jeesh |
|
hey spunk. coldwar is over. the need for a military of overwhelming numbers is all but diminished. technology is replacing the ranks. maybe clinton realized that, like rumsfeld is. as far as Clinton's deployments....thats a different matter. "I don't think he will, tiggy. Maybe for sending them to afgan and iraq, which he deserves credit for, but not military performance." thats a fine line that most can't distinguish. how can you take credit for deploying and not take credit for their successful performance? |
I hope I am not wrong. |
Seems as if people would read up on the program they would understand why certain military post were closed. It certainly wasn't proposed by Clinton it was inherited (for lack of a better word) by the Clinton Administration. The BRAC Program was done by Daddy Bush when he was president....Dick Cheney when he was Secretary of Defense etc. That's who started this Base Closure and Realignment Program and downsizing of the military in 90 and it will go throug 2005 with updates periodically. I guess some didn't know or start really paying attention to the closures until the Clinton Administration. The first series of base closures and equipment downsizing was an administrative disaster for some military personnel especially the ones overseas for many different reasons and not through the fault of the soldiers. I guess what I am trying to say is that some people need to really research things before they speak or type some of the things they say. Just as Halliburton was propose to be a major private contractor (Daddy Bush and Cheney again) so was the downsizing and base realignments of the military. |
Seems as if people would read up on the program they would understand why certain military post were closed. It certainly wasn't proposed by Clinton it was inherited (for lack of a better word) by the Clinton Administration. The BRAC Program was done by Daddy Bush when he was president....Dick Cheney when he was Secretary of Defense etc. That's who started this Base Closure and Realignment Program and downsizing of the military in 90 and it will go throug 2005 with updates periodically. I guess some didn't know or start really paying attention to the closures until the Clinton Administration. The first series of base closures and equipment downsizing was an administrative disaster for some military personnel especially the ones overseas for many different reasons and not through the fault of the soldiers. I guess what I am trying to say is that some people need to really research things before they speak or type some of the things they say. Just as Halliburton was propose to be a major private contractor (Daddy Bush and Cheney again) so was the downsizing and base realignments of the military. |
I believe they took years to evailuate all the bases. I deffinately did not agree with a lot of their decisiions. If the idea was to down size and still be prepared they should never have touched the larger facilities like they did. Closing the smallest bases made scence. But, down sizing some of the big ones I think was more of a political move. It doesn't leave as much room for emergency expansion. And, it brings civilian populations that much closer. |