Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Can anyone refute this rw e-mail?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
trof Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 04:33 PM
Original message
Can anyone refute this rw e-mail?
I've Snoped and Googled and can find nothing.
Anybody? Thanks.
trof


Sleep Well

709,000 REGULAR (ACTIVE DUTY) PERSONNEL.
293,000 RESERVE TROOPS.
EIGHT STANDING ARMY DIVISIONS.
20 AIR FORCE AND NAVY AIR WINGS WITH 2,000 COMBAT AIRCRAFT.
232 STRATEGIC BOMBERS
19 STRATEGIC BALLISTIC MISSILE SUBMARINES WITH 3,114 NUCLEAR
WARHEADS ON 232 MISSILES.
500 ICBMs WITH 1,950 WARHEADS.
FOUR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS AND 121 SURFACE COMBAT SHIPS AND
SUBMARINES PLUS ALL THE SUPPORT BASES, SHIPYARDS, AND LOGISTICAL ASSETS NEEDED TO SUSTAIN SUCH A NAVAL FORCE.

IS THIS COUNTRY:
RUSSIA?
NO
CHINA?
NO
GREAT BRITAIN?
NO
FRANCE?
WRONG AGAIN

MUST BE USA?
STILL WRONG
GIVE UP?

THESE ARE THE AMERICAN MILITARY FORCES THAT WERE ELIMINATED
DURING THE ADMINISTRATION OF BILL CLINTON AND AL GORE.

SLEEP WELL!
Keep this in mind as the political pundits spew their
anti-Bush propaganda. There are SEVERAL claims that our servicemen are
deployed for too long, and serving longer tours. This kind of talk is sure to continue as the election looms closer. If we still had all these military personnel, troops could be rotated more frequently.

Remember, you can't always judge a liberal by what they say.
Sometimes it's what they don't say, that says it all!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
JustFiveMoreMinutes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
1. Clinton and REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED house & senate?
Edited on Thu Jun-03-04 04:37 PM by JustFiveMoreMinutes
Just curious.

And just BTW if we had ALL the numbers 'back up' to where this poster would like them, just HOW does it make lying and attacking Iraq more pallatable?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tempest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 04:38 PM
Response to Original message
2. Cuts started by Bush Sr. and Rumsfeld
These cuts were started by Bush Sr. and Rumsfeld.

www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/~tlibrary/pg/3-05-04.doc

www.newarkadvocate.com/news/stories/ 20030630/localnews/569408.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 04:39 PM
Response to Original message
3. IIRC, all of those cuts went into effect under Clinton
but were approved by dick (Head) Cheney under Bush I.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mot78 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 04:41 PM
Response to Original message
4. A lot of those cuts began UNDER Bush Sr. and Cheney
In fact, some of the programs they attacked Kerry for cutting were programs ordered to be cut by Dick himself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WMliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 04:41 PM
Response to Original message
5. why do we need all of that extra crap anyway?
could you imagine the cost every year of maintaining that much extra useless stuff?
We don't have 5000 nuclear warheads he had in 1992. Oh darn, we only retain the ability to nuke every square inch of the earth 3 times over instead of 4....
Honestly. That sort of right wingnut is the kind that thinks the best way to fight the war on terror is to fight it exactly the same way we did the cold war, using the same tools we didn't need and paid TRILLIONS for.
We'd be better off spending that much on soft power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RobertSeattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 04:42 PM
Response to Original message
6. These cuts STARTED under Cheney back in late 80's
Trust me - I know - I was in the Army when we were RIFF'ing right and left.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Career Prole Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. I trust you...
It was the "peace dividend" that brought the deepest of the cuts, Pappy Bush was president, and none other than Dick Cheney was SecDef.
"Must read" article here re defense cuts:
http://slate.msn.com//?id=2096127&
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rkc3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
7. Two comments.
Before you bring up either of these - ask a question about what good Bill Clinton did for the US while in office. It's likely (despite 20 million new jobs, unrivaled prosperity for the country, etc.) you'll find out Clinton was just an asshole and did nothing but bring this country to its current disaster level. In that case - no amount of logic or truth will work.

If they aren't completely tarnished by Rush, Bill, or Sean, then here you go:

One. There were a few years under Clinton where the republicans controlled either the house or the senate - a number of these programs may have been cut by them to balance the budget. Even if I'm wrong - Cheney tried to cut some of these programs while in his first run at politics.

Two. Prior to 9/11, Donald Rumsfeld was in the process of modernizing America's military. This modernization included removal of older weapons systems to make America lighter, faster and more responsive. It also included closing of military bases (Bush is still working on base closures).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
keithyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
8. Yes, but didn't 'best prepared military in the world' kick Saddam's butt
and the Taliban in Afghanistan? So much so, we didn't use all that we had available to us thanks to Rummy's decision. So just what was the point of the original e-mail?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheDebbieDee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
9. I clearly remember that these cuts began............
during the Bush I administration. I was in the Army, in Germany at the time.

One of the strangest things that Bush I's voo-doo economists did was change military paydays from the 15th & last day of the month to the 15th and first day of the next month for about the last 3 months of Fiscal Year 1989. This allowed them to appear to "cut" about a half month's payroll from the budget at the end of the Fiscal Year. Then, in October 1989, paydays went back to the 15th & last day of the month. Strange, but true.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stellanoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 04:48 PM
Response to Original message
10. regardless of party affiliations. . .
was a pragmatic bipartisan reaction to the end of the Cold War and stupid obsolete policies. . .

But * came in and ignored Bin Ladin's threats (see Clarke's book). They were far more concerned with missile defense than terrorism. "It was as thought they were preserved in amber." (fave and most apt quotation)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SeattleDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 04:55 PM
Response to Original message
11. Cheney thanked Reagan for the military for Gulf War I
and Clinton is still waiting for the thanks for the level of preparedness for Gulf War II.

Cheney said back then (under Bush Sr) that you've got to give credit to a previous administration because that's who you inherit the military from (or something to that effect)

so, if things were cut to the bone under Clinton, how did we just invade and take Baghdad, lickety-split?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toby109 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 04:59 PM
Response to Original message
12. My answer? If the case they are trying to make
is that the military left over from Clinton was deficient, then what kind of commander-in-chief would start a war of choice under those circumstances? These people are idiots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lagniappe Donating Member (228 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 05:03 PM
Response to Original message
14. I need to start keeping a list of Bush's 'achievements' prior to 9/11.
This is just off the top of my head. I am sure others can add to the list:

$58 million in cuts to counter-terrorism
$125 million in humanitarian aid to the Taliban
4 months of vacation
1 letter of apology to China
0 briefings with his CIA director when the most critical warnings of 9/11 were being received.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeahMira Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 05:03 PM
Response to Original message
15. When the "Cold War" Ended...
... there was no need to maintain such a level of military readiness. To President Clinton's eternal credit, he was able, through diplomacy and a willingness to listen and respect others, to prevent major wars. Easily enough, with the "don't mess with the U.S." attitudes out there, a war might have started over the Cole or over the 1993 WTC bombing or over any number of other events, but President Clinton skillfully avoided it. Now, we are stuck with a pResident who wants to start wars around the world and has named specific nations as part of an "axis of evil."

Really... if you're going to shoot your mouth off and dare the rest of the world to defy you, you'd better be sure you have the back-up you need to make good on your bluster.

OTOH, sensible folks, when they know that weapons stockpiles and human resources are limited, do tend to try to get along with others lots more... generally a good argument for arms reduction except when you have an idiot in the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vicman Donating Member (373 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
16. All of the above is true, but also remember
that Donald Rumsfeld disagrees with that letter-writer. In fact, since he has taken over he has expressed his desire to further cut back and restructure the military into small, lightweight attack units. And he STILL wants to cut troop strength. Here's an article from last November which effectively sums up the plans Rummy is putting into effect even now. Send that article to your RW spammer.

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Defensewatch_110503_Brigade,00.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trof Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
17. You guys are aces. Thanks.
I just "truth bombed" him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greekspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 05:36 PM
Response to Original message
18. Ask the sender how many military bases Bush and Reagan closed down
Ask of them under which president the draft was last abolished. Ask of them who we needed so many munitions and units to fight against at the time. Just plain dispell the myth that the country with the biggest army is the best country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemBones DemBones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 05:51 PM
Response to Original message
19. Last time this issue came up,

there was at least one DUer who was in the military at the time (Bush I) and was able to cut short his hitch because the administration was asking for volunteers to get out early!!!

(If anyone mentioned this early exit plan already in this thread, I missed it.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 17th 2024, 09:01 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC