The State Of Our Military

JT, Thanks for the new thread as well great idea.

Bill Fold, Good idea for the new thread.

Let me preface my posts by saying a few things. First and foremost my posts aren't an effort to demonize Clinton. Obviously I don't like him. However I have also defended him and don't blame him for every ill that we face. He's no longer our president but there are after effects of his tenure. The military being chief among them. You and I know that you can't rebuild the military overnight. I am passionate about this because those cuts lead to needless death and some were friends of mine. And those cuts are also hurting us today. I believe one of the largest functions of government is to provide a defense. I believed that long before 9-11.

There were certain things however that I feel greatly hurt our nation and it has nothing to do with an intern. My reason for bringing it up is mainly so people get an idea of what we face today and why it is that we are in the situation in the military today. It's not an effort to say I'm right your wrong. My main hope is that by knowing that, people say never again should we be complacent. 8 years ago we were at realative peace, the soviet union had crumbled times were pretty good. I can't count the number of times I heard many mostly from the left saying, "the cold war is over, we don't face the threats we did, we don't need to spend as much on the military, we need to spend it for social spending etc."

They were partly right. Obviously with the fall of the Soviet Union our posistion in the world was different. We didn't need as large a military because of that and could have more efficient defense forces. Base closings and some cuts were certainly good ideas. Many people saw the bombs going down smokestacks on CNN and assumed that with all the technology we had that smaller forces were the way to go. No matter what technology etc. we have, no matter how far we come you will always have to have people on the ground to take ground and hold it. That will never change. The threats we face today probably couldn't be seen then understandibly, and that is my whole point. We never know and the military is a convienent whipping boy when they aren't needed and we are at peace. The cries for cuts during that period were loudest from the left and echoed through Pres. Clinton.
and his budgets.

Those cuts that started under Bush Sr. were adequate, some wanted alot more cuts, ALOT. And no one would ever excuse waste in any program, it's happend under every admin and probably always will. The difference Bill is that those cuts were fine WITH the average number of deployments and ops that we HAD been undertaking. NOT the increased number of ops we saw under President Clinton. Not only did he cut the budget too much he deployed us more than any other President. Some ops were small some large, but added all up and it equated many problems. Wear and tear on equippment, more time away from family. In 1998 the average soilder worked an average of 15 hours a day 6 days a week. The number of deployments and time away increased almost double. Pay lagged behind as we've already discussed. What did this add up too ? Loss of morale and mainly loss of experienced leadership and highly skilled m.o.s you CAN'T repalce those people tomorrow. A PFC first class you can replace if they leave. A person to lead that PFC with combat experience you can't. ground crews are failry easily replaced. A pilot that requires 7 years of training to be proficient cannot.

It was easy then politically, and we will pay the price today. Let's hope that we never let it happen again. Remember where we are today and in 10 years God willing we are at a realative peace again and someone looks for easy money in a budget and says , hey, let's cut military spending, remember where we are today and pray that China never has to be dealt with. Don't let it happen again.

Will our forces prevail, Yes, they do an outstanding job and are performing admiribly in Afghanistan and everywhere they are asked to go. They make due with what they have and Afghanistan etc. are pretty small ops. Iraq etc. or wherever they might have to go will be tougher and lives could be saved with a larger force and more experienced leaders. Let's hope we don't have to.

Bill Fold,

From your other posts on the other thread.

I am going to try to find more exact data on exactly what he was referring to Rob, and it may take some time, but if found to be true, it would certainly cast doubt on the notion that under Clinton, military defense budgets shrunk as under no other Presidents, as I stated earlier, and in fact what I am sure the data will clearly point out, as it seems to in the article I have linked-to above.

First, $50 Billion from 1992-2000 is not in fact correct, since in 1992 Clinton was bound by the budget which was handed to him by outgoing President Bush, and was less than in 1990-1991 AND, 1985-1990 saw a 16% cut in spending, in any event.

Where did you get a 16% cut between 1985 and 1990 ?

From CDI (center for defense information) and the Depatrment of Defense. From 1996

Billions of 1996 Dollars in Outlays)

Year Spending Year Spending
1945 962.7 1971 311.7
1946 500.6 1972 289.1
1947 133.7 1973 259.5
1948 94.7 1974 243.8
1949 127.8 1975 242.0
1950 133.0 1976 234.0
1951 225.7 1977 232.7
1952 408.5 1978 233.2
1953 437.0 1979 237.4
1954 402.1 1980 246.2
1955 344.5 1981 260.8
1956 320.7 1982 282.0
1957 322.4 1983 303.2
1958 317.9 1984 318.1
1959 306.9 1985 343.7
1960 289.6 1986 363.7
1961 291.1 1987 371.1
1962 300.0 1988 372.8
1963 293.3 1989 376.2
1964 294.8 1990 358.7
1965 268.3 1991 316.5
1966 297.3 1992 328.6
1967 354.1 1993 312.1
1968 388.9 1994 290.3
1969 371.8 1995 272.1
1970 346.0 1996 265.6 (est.)

http://www.cdi.org/issues/milspend.html

I'm not sure where you got the figure of a 16% cut between 1985 and 1990. in 1985 the spending levels were (in Billions) .......1985, 343.7, 1986 363.7, 1987 371.1, 1988 372.8, 1989 376.2 1990, 358.7

So add all those up and it's not a 16% cut. Take a look at the increase in that 5 year period and it's quite the opposite those years saw some of the largest increases.

in 1992 Clinton was bound by the budget which was handed to him by outgoing President Bush, and was less than in 1990-1991

Hate to tell you but the budget in 1992 was alot larger than 91. Clinton's first budget would have been F.Y 1993. Hmmm let's see. The budget in 92 which was Bush's was 328.6 (B) Bill's first year it was 312.1 (B) So His very first budget had already cut it by quite a bit more than his predecseeor.

Reagan, Bush and indeed Clinton ALL knew this was coming and they ALL took action to reduce our forces in kind, but did Clinton really reduce them MORE than the other two did?

That is the question, and the answer, so far, seems to be NO.

Are you sure about that ? See above.

Also, your statements and mine about the numbers of U.S. Warships? It goes without saying that we need an effective Naval fighting-force, but lets face it... The U.S. Navy in 1945 needed 25 ships to do the job that 1 ship can do in today's Navy, perhaps even more than that. As newer forms of Naval Technology and better ships have come into play(Aegis, Trident, etc.) it is only natural that these numbers of ships would continue to drop even further, since one of today's Aircraft Carriers carries the same destructive force as ALL of the Navy's ships inflicted upon the enemies of freedom during WWII.

SO THEN... It is a fact today's ship numbers are lower than they have been since before WWII, but a good argument can be made that todays ships can flatten whole nations, all by themselves, even without the need for Marines and or Army Battallions, In Most Cases.

I suppose we could discuss if that number is adequate all day. I adressed it only because you brought it up in post 271 on the Vet's board you said.

GDubbya's proposed changes, small as they have been, are only now coming into play in regards to the Armed Services... In fact, there are less ships now than at ANY time in the 20th Century and we have forces stretched so thin that without an expansion of numbers, he will never be able to invade IRAQ, which he so wants to do.

I am not sure what you meant by that I guess, it seemed to me you were lamenting that we didn't have enough ships. Perhaps I read it wrong. Either way we have less ships now than we did in 1938. And That number seems a little low to me. The experts or people in the know are saying it's not enough. But I waon't post a bunch of op-eds on it sice we could trade those back and forth non stop. If you're happy with those numbers why argue it.

From CDI. (Center for defense information)

Defense spending as a percentage of GDP

Year %
1980 4.9
1981 5.1
1982 5.7
1983 6.1
1984 5.9
1985 6.1
1986 6.2
1987 6.1
1988 5.8
1989 5.6
1990 5.2
1991 4.6
1992 4.8
1993 4.4
1994 4.1
1995 3.7
1996 3.5
1997 3.3
1998 3.1
1999 3.0
2000 3.0
2001 3.0
2002 3.4

You'll notice those totals from 93 to 01' Hmm I wonder who was Prez ? Nah he didn't cut the military, I forgot, righto then.

Bill,

Well of course as posted, those figures don't say how much our national budgets were, nor do they take into account the fact that downsizing of our military,

Bill, they are the actual final expenses from DOD, proposals etc. are one thing but those are the national budget for defense which is what we are talking about. What other budgets etc were are irrelavant to this conversation if we are still talking are talking about actual dollars spent on defense. "they don't take into account the fact of downsizing our military" Huh ? Those budget figures from the first chart show exactly what we spent. And they were less every year except for 01 and took HUGE dips during the Clinton admin. They ARE the exact reason we down sized. Smaller budget means less troops, ships, equipment, pay, training etc. Oh and just for nice measure he deployed us moe than any other president. But the numbers are there. And we can see just how much or little money was put into defense.

which was begun under Reagan was continuing and is only now going up, and directly because of 9-11,

First of all the budget under Reagan went up every year, he made small cuts as did Bush Sr. Who made some larger cuts with the collapse of the Soviet Union. As I said all cuts aren't a bad thing and even Clinton's first budget was probably an o.k number for that time. And even held steady might have been bare bones if he wasn't deploying us more than any modern president. Bush Jr.'s Budget for F.Y 01 was in ink well before 9-11 and was one of the biggest increases in 20 years. The numbers are there in black and white. And they are telling.

nor do they take into account the huge growth in GNP and the resulting widening tax base that we experienced, all through the mid to late 90's because of the extemely intense economic expansion of those years. A LOT of variables.

Actally it's even more sad if you factor in the large growth from the nineties. we were down to spending a sad 3% of gdp on the military.
It's a percentage and that percentage dropped as well. Also is the little problem of looking at the actual dollars spent.

Also... You quite correctly quoted my post about increasing our naval fighting ship numbers, but you gorgot to mention that I said that IF GDubbya wanted to invade Iraq and expand the WOT then he would of course NEED to increase the numbers of fighting ships, to go along with the increase in the other services and to help offset logistical considerations with the other Armed Servises in the event of a widening of the WOT.

Right you are, and thanks for helping me make my point. He would have to increase the number of ships. Problem is as you well know, ships aren't built overnight. What if we had needed them 2 years ago ? We need them now more than ever and there's The perfect example of what Clinton's cuts did. Cutting it is the easy part, building it back up isn't. You don't replace, ships, aircraft and most of all highly skilled leaders and trained personel overnight. But we got too complacent and we are paying the price today.

The way things are now, it would seem that the armed forces are doing well with what they have, stretched-thin as they may be. GDubbya has had plenty of time to expand both the budgets and nymbers of fighting men and women... Under Reagan, in his second year in office, the biggest increases in defense spending in peacetime were already happening(1985), wouldn't you agree(as was the deficit)?

Yes and it's a damn good thing he did. Reagan had to build it back up from Carter's defunding same is happening now. We also happened to beat the soviets without a shot being fired. I'm not going to debate those semantics and No I don't credit Reagan with soelely ending the cold war but he certainly helped.

Now the numbers you quoted in your chart for defense spending in 1991, are totally different than the numbers I found in several sites, one being this link:

Link-> http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/rva/1012/1012227.htm

I believe we can trust the Senate figures, and they are far less than the figures from your link. In fact, the bill in question, which was from a republican controlled Senate states:

Yes they are less, do you know why ? If you had checked the source, the bill or budget resolution that passed in the above article was
297 Billion. The actual dollar amount spent was 316.5 (B) Because that's what we actually spent and also INCLUDES that little thing called the Gulf war. That's why they are different. That's why the final numbers of what we spent is what is so sad and telling. those numbers are from DOD and CDI and are in black and white.

So then... The numbers are as varied as the sands on the beach, it would seem, and the fact is that YES, numbers, budgets and outlays for defense spending "in general" have dropped and they have done so for years, starting in 1986,

Bill, Did you actually read the report? They aren't as varied as the "sands on the beach" So you want to stick by your assertion that defense spending started to drop in 1986 ? Again Bill I'm not making these numbers up. They are from DOD and CDI of what we actually spent. It's not an editorial it's how much we wrote checks out for in that year. Here you go. Again this is from the original numbers from DOD and CDI. You'll notice we were still spending more each year until 90, and back up in 92 and down again in 93 and continually down from there at a fast rate. Until recently. Notice any trend starting in 1993 ? Notice a large percentage of a continued downward trend ?

1981 260.8 / 1982 282.0 /1983 303.2/ 1984 318.1/ 1985 343.7 /1986 363.7 /1987 371.1 /1988 372.8 /1989 376.2/ 1990 358.7/ 1991 316.5 /1992 328.6 /1993 312.1 /1994 290. /1995 272. /1996 265.6 (est.)

and only NOW are they on the rise again, in real dollars spent... But the rest of both of our "Facts" are as subjective as they sources we got them from, wouldn't you say?

No I wouldn't, No offense meant at all Bill but The one link you provided on actual numbers were off because of the Gulf War. And the other a quote from someone regarding story you saw on the history channel. But I tell you what I wiil get you some more numbers if you like.

Source for both tables. DOD (Department of Defense and CDI)

NUMBER OF ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY PERSONNEL 1789-2000
Year Total DoD Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force
1789 700 700 N/A N/A N/A1
1812 12,700 6,700 5,500 500 N/A1
1865 1,062,800 1,000,700 58,300 3,900 N/A1
1862 76,700 57,000 16,300 3,300 N/A1
1918 2,897,200 2,395,700 448,600 52,800 N/A1
19203 343,300 204,300 121,800 17,200 N/A1
1945 12,055,900 8,266,400 3,319,600 469,900 N/A1
1947 1,582,100 685,500 497,800 93,000 305,800
1952 3,635,900 1,596,400 824,300 232,000 983,300
1962 2,805,600 1,066,400 664,200 191,000 884,000
1968 3,546,100 1,570,300 763,600 307,300 904,900
1987 2,174,200 780,800 586,800 199,500 607,000
1995 1,807,200 610,500 541,900 184,500 470,300
1996 1,456,216 485,180 413,065 173,595 384,426
1997 1,381,034 474,217 371,762 171,265 363,790
2000 1,370,918 479,026 367,371 173,195 351,326
NOTES:

Totals may not add due to rounding. Numbers include full-time military personnel comprising regular, reserves on active duty, and officer candidates.

Sorry for the duplicate post there. I'm not sure what that was.

Selected U.S. Military Deployments/Engagements 1975-2001
Mission Dates
1. Evacuation of Saigon Apr 1975
2. Mayaguez Rescue May 12–15,
3. Evacuation of 250 U.S. and other Jul 22–23, 1976
westerners from Lebanon
4. Korea–”tree cutting incident” 1976
5. Sinai Multinational Force 1979–
and Observers(
6. Zaire May–Jun 1978
7. Iran-Desert One Apr 1980
8. Libya-Gulf of Sidra Aug 1981
9. El Salvador 1981–90
10. Lebanon Aug–Sep 1982
11. Lebanon Sep 1982–
12. Nicaragua 1983–89
13. Egypt-Sudan 1983
14. Chad 1983
15. Grenada–Urgent Fury 1983–85
16. Lebanon Hostages 1984
17. Egyptian Air Intercept–Achille Oct 1985
Lauro terrorists
18. Libya–Gulf of Sidra 1986
19. Libya-Tripoli raid Apr 1986
20. Operation Blast Furnace 1986–
21. Persian Gulf–Reflagging 1987–88
Operation “Earnest Will”
22. Panama 1988
23. Libya 1989
24. Panama May 1989
25. Bolivia, Peru, Colombia Sep 1989
26. Philippines Dec 89
27. Panama–Just Cause 1989–90
28. Liberia–Operation Sharp Edge Jun 1990
29. Desert Shield/Desert Storm 1990–91
30. Operation Eastern Exit–NEO from Jan 1991
Somalia
31. Bangladesh–Operation Sea Angel May 1991
32. Zaire–Operation Quick Lift Sep 1991
33. Kurdish relief –“Provide Comfort” 1991–1996
and “Safe Haven”
34. Operation Southern Watch (Iraq)– 1992–
Major contingency action Oct 1994
35. Operation Desert Falcon 1991–
(Saudi Arabia)
36. Haitian refugees– 1991–94
Operation GITMO

Bill, Notice This is about the time Where Mr. Clinton took the helm.
Give or take a few deployments.

37. Operation Provide Hope Feb 1992
38. Sierra Leone- May 1992
39. Somalia–Operation Restore Hope 1992–93
40. Former Yugoslavia 1992–95
Operation Provide Promise
Opns Maritime Monitor/Guard
Operation Sharp Guard
Operation Deny Flight
41. Angola–Operation Aug 1992
Provide Transition
42. Somalia, Kenya– 1992
OperationProvide Relief
43. Operation Able Sentry 1993–
44. Haiti: Operations 1993–95
Support Democracy
Restore Democracy
Uphold Democracy
45. Korea (nuclear power plants) 1994
46. Operation Sea Signal– 1994–96
Cuban refugees
47. Rwanda–Joint Task Force 1994–95
Support Hope
48. Operation Vigilant Warrior– 1994
Persian Gulf
49. Somalia–UN withdrawl– 1995
Operation United Shield
50. Operation Deliberate Force 1995
(Bosnia air strikes)
51. Military Observation Mission in 1995–98
Ecuador and Peru (MOMEP)–
Operation Safe Border
52. Intervention Force (IFOR)NATO in 1995–96
Bosnia–Operation Joint Endeavor
53. Stabilization Force (SFOR) NATO 1996–98
in Bosnia Operation Joint Guard
54. Former Yugoslavia– 1996–1998
Operation Deliberate Guard
Operation Determined Guard
55. Operation Desert Focus Jul 1996–
56. Operation Desert Strike Sep 1996
57. Operation Pacific Haven (Relocate 1996–97
6,500 Kurds to Guam)
58. Operation Quick Response 1996
59. Operation Assured Response 1996
60. Operation Guardian Assistance 1996
61. Operation Northen Watch Jan 97–
(No-fly zone over Northern Iraq)
62. Operation Assured Lift (Liberia) 1997
63. Operation Silver Wake 1997
64. Intrinsic Action I-III Jan–Dec 1998
65. Determined Falcon (Air power Jun 98
display over Albania & Macedonia)
66. Stabilization Force SFOR) NATO Jun 98–
in Bosnia–Operation Joint Forge
67. Former Yugoslavia– Jun 1998–
Operation Deliberate Forge
Operation Determine Forge
68. Operation Safe Departure Jun 1998
69. Operation Shepherd Venture Jun 1998
70. Operation Balkan Calm Jul–Nov 1998
71. Operation Autumn Shelter Aug 1998
72. Operation Resolute Response Aug 1998
(Embassy bombing assistance,
Tanzania and Kenya)
73. Operation Infinite Reach Aug 1998
74. Operation Eagle Eye Oct 1998–
75. Operation Strong Support Nov 1998–Mar
76. Operation Desert Fox Dec 1998
77. Operation Allied Force Mar–Jun 1999
(US Operation Noble Anvil)
78. Operation Allied Harbour (US Apr–Jul 1999
(US Operation Shining Hope)
79. Operation Joint Guardian Jun 1999–
(Kosovo Force–KFOR)
80. Operation Avid Response Aug–Sep 1999
81. East Timor (INTERFET) Oct 1999–Feb
UN International Force
(US Operation Stabilise)
82. U.N. Transitional Administration Oct 1999–
East Timor (UNTAET)
83. Operation Fundamental Response Jan–Mar 2000
84. U.S. Support Group East Timor Feb 2000–
(USGET)
85. Operation Atlas Response Mar 2000
86. Determined Response Oct 2000–
(USS Cole bombing)
87. Desert Spring (Kuwait)(formerly Oct 2000–
Intrinsic Action)

W. takes office.

88. Desert Falcon (Kuwait) Feb 2001
89. Desert Focus (Kuwait) Feb 2001

Source www.cdi.org

Overdeployed with less resources. Nahh, nothing to see here. Amazing Gee I wonder why rediness and retention were down ? hmmm Well I guess when your CIC decides your the worlds cop AND cuts your budget at the same time it might just have an effect on troops and equipment. Gosh I wonder why good people left ?
Naw, he didn't have a bad effect on the military.

Bill,

We can parse words all day. The FACT of the matter is that

1) Pres. Clinton deployed us more than any other modern president.

2)In additon to cutting our budget at the same time ! More so than his predecseeors going back to Reagan. Yes Reagan (debatable) and Bush Sr. Cut budgets. No where near the levels of the Clinton years ESPECIALLY considering the MASSIVE amount and frequency of ops. You're response so far is well they did it too. It was rightly cut at the end of the cold war but too a point Look at the percentages and amounts, look at the deployments and troop numbers as a WHOLE. If you want to debate semanitcs or details fine. In general the budget was cut during those years at a sustained rate and at an alarming rate as we were deployed more and more. In short he simply went too far with the cuts and deployments.

3) This combination led to qualified and combat experinced leaders leaving due to conditions.

4) The loss also of highly skilled posisitions that take YEARS to train and replace.

5) The toll that deployments and lack of funds had on existing equippment was telling and that money also took away from procurement for new equipment to replace aging gear.

6) Morale was reduced. Actually It started to increase the very last year of his presidencey with some actual increases for the first time in his tenure and fewer deployments.

7) Naval ships and Aircraft were not procurred at acceptable levels and as you well know aren't replaced overnight. Some ships can take 2-5 years to build depending on research and plans in place.

8) Something we haven't mentioned or talked about was also the social experimentation in the military during his tenure. It had a definate negative impact on readiness and morale.

I don't know Bill, Like I said I am NOT trying to beat you up on this or be a "I told you so guy". I like you and think you're a good guy and hope you feel mutually . We just tend to differ on this issue.
I want people to remember this because it has and will cost lives. I know you like Pres. Clinton or consider him your "guy" etc. That's fine I understand that. I don't think he's to blame for every ill either. I have defended him as well if you remember I have been one of the few who don't think that 9-11 was all his blame and many other things as well. The other issues are in the past, he's gone. Unfortunately this issue is effecting us today when we find ourselves in need. Rebuilding the military is not an easy task, the cuts simply went too far. Obviously with 9-11 it takes a front seat with the public. What a shame that a few years ago the calls of "the cold war is over we don't face the threats we did" became the rallying cry of many on the left (not all) as our military was made smaller and smaller and they were forced to do more with less and streched themselves thinner.
Let's hope we never are in the situation we are today.

How you can claim that he and his administration didn't have a bad effect on the military is beyond me. I have and can show you numerous FACTS of budget and deployments etc. Yet you dispute them or pass them off or say yea well they did it too. You'll note that I haven't posted one editorial that another person wrote on this thread. It's pure numbers. I have also told you personel experinces as well, If you can't see it or refuse to admit it, so be it. Ask anyone else who was there and is still in about his effects since you don't believe me.

I agree with you numerous times and on many things.
And I agree the men and women in uniform are doing a great job today with what they have and I admire each and every one. I still have friends that are active and always make sure I tell them that. The problem I see is in future larger scale ops. Afghanistan is a realativley small op in scale. Larger ops will be sucessfull in all probablity but at how much more of a cost ? Hopefully the losses we experienced over the last few years can be recovered quickly and our forces given the levels of support they deserve.

Rob, you are certainly fervant in your desire to believe all of the "facts" you went to all that trouble to find from the mostly conservative sources that you frequent and gleaned these items from.

Yea, As JT correctly pointed out the DOD and CDI are such conservative forums, pffft. I purposely didn't post anything from a source you might even consider to be biased Hell, I left out some stuff from even left leaning sights as I didn't want editorialized stuff coming into the debate. But instead of providing any facts to address it or
even directly adressing what I posted you attacked the source as being conservative. I guess that's what people do when they have no facts.

Also... I see in the list you brought up that compares the Clinton years to those of his predecessors, that for instance the troop deployments to Haiti have three distinct deployments listed, although the troops were already there and it was really only one 2+ year deployment and they supervised free elections there as well, and they were NOT the 1st or even the 5th expedition our young men have been asked to serve in Haiti, to calm insurrections and just plain murder. That's fine, I see the strategy. It's like counting up all the actions and battles of WWII and then claiming each as an independent deployment, when in fact 16 million Americans in uniform were deployed for almost 4 years...?

Gee Bill Did I include WW2 ? The list shows from 75 to 01'. I also said if you'll note that it was give or take a few deployments, he inherited some as did Bush Jr. I also never adressed if they were good or bad deployments. Some are I think and some weren't he decided that we should be the world cop so be it. He deployed us all over, it wa his perogative as president, it's just a fact that's in black and white. The problem is that again instead of adressing the issue you attack how the report was put together. Of course I didn't see anything from you that could refute it but what the hey. FACT remains Fold that he DID depoly us MORE than any other president since 75' Deal with it. Naw that doing that or cutting the budget wouldn't have any effect on morale retention or readiness. Geez.

FINALLY...I knew that this was one of the driving forces behind your whole argument, "Faggots" in the Military... Don't ask Don't Tell", which by the way is STILL in force, yet never discussed anymore even though GDubbya is now Commander-in-Chief and could have changed this policy... Why haven't morale issues related to this policy been discussed lately, even though HE hasn't changed that policy?

In short BULLSHIT. Do me a favor and the next time you get the stupid idea of putting what you THINK are my thoughts or view on a subject. DON'T. It's not a driving issue at all to me. That is a minor issue to me, are others in the military bothered by it ? probably, I don't know you'd have to ask them. Personally I don't care about it if they do their duty and aren't disruptive I don't care whom they are attracted to, I say welcome and thank you for your service.
Also is the issue of men and women fighting together in the same unit We can discuss that if you'd like and I think it would be a good discussion because their is some legitamate concern about that. Those things did have an effect on morale as well. It's not just about me, there are alot of people in the services and some are bothered by it and some aren't I would say the majority was bothered by it. So yes it had an effect on morale. Not a major one but it did, Again Bill. I personally don't care what someone's orientation is as long as they do their duty. So it has little or nothing to do with my argument of morale and readiness so don't try to put words in my mouth comprende ?

See, I served under Nixon, and even though the man was flawed in the extreme, I have never seen one Dem or "Liberal" on these boards try to tear him a new asshole as intently as the right has done to Dem-Presidents, especially Clinton (all because because of "Pussy" and "Gays in the Military") even though the world did not "End" under his(their) administrations and in fact some of them led us through the devastation of two immense and unbeleivably savage World Wars, and a "Great" depression as well.

First of all Bill here's the difference, I believe you that things were bad under Nixon. Why ? simply because you told me it was, even without facts to back it up I have no doubt that it was because I take you're word on it. Secondly, Nixon probably doesn't get brought up alot because it was over 30 years ago. Now maybe his presidency still has an effect on the military today I don't see how but maybe so. Nixon hasn't been discussed much on this board probably due to him being dead and president a long time ago. I haven't seen anyone trash him nor have I seen anyone try to say he's great either. At least the bastard resigned. And I don't think people would argue that life in the military during any of the Vietnam years was great it obviously wasn't because I have listened to my fellow soilders airmen, and sailors.

... Don't ask Don't Tell", which by the way is STILL in force, yet never discussed anymore even though GDubbya is now Commander-in-Chief and could have changed this policy... Why haven't morale issues related to this policy been discussed lately, even though HE hasn't changed that policy?

Why not just let sleeping dogs lie?

Bill Fold,

JT said "Rob doesn't seem the type to play the "Blame Clinton" game."

I didn't say that, but I DO say that it IS a PART of what he is saying.

It's not a matter of who's right and who's wrong. Obviously my opinions are no secret :) But I have supported him on some issues as well and criticized republicans too. I would have criticized another president no matter who it was if he had slashed the budget and then deployed us more than any president since Vietnam and shortchanged our men and women in uniform and lives were lost because of it and could be still today. That crosses any party lines I may have, period. I have criticized Bush Sr. for not letting us complete our mission by caving in to the Arab nations mainly and the joke that is AKA the U.N. He should have not given in to that pressure.

Bill, the fact still remains regardless of my opinion that under his watch he cut budgets drasticly and deployed us more than any president since 75' Our troop force was reduced by 38% our Naval force was reduced greatly and our equipment isn't what it should be, pay dropped and morale with it because of all those things put together. And in direct correlation with the above mentioned things our retention dropped and we lost good people who were experienced and highly skilled who aren't replaced overnight. It will cost us lives today and tomorrow.

I have shown you the numbers I have given you credible sources and I have personally told you of what happened. If you still refuse to admit that those things have had a bad effect on the military or that it might just be still today, so be it. It's like trying to persuade someone the sky is blue and having them look up and look back at you and say, nope it's green. At some point why debate that particular issue anymore.

..."Something we haven't mentioned or talked about either the social experimentation in the military during his tenure. It had a definate negative impact on readiness and morale."

HOW THEN? You tell me...OK? Exactly what did you mean here?

Bill,

I was talking about that and women in the military. I am or was only one person in the military. Mine is just but one opinion. I personally have no problems with gay people in the military. Again if you are serving I say thanks and welcome, I don't care what persuasion you are. I frankly think that don't ask don't tell is fine. But as I said, mine was only one opinion out of many in the service. And I can tell you that many of the soilders had a problem with it, some didn't like me but we were in the minority and it had an effect on morale. So I was stating it as a matter of fact or from what I saw when I was in. It doesn't mean I personally had a problem with it, capiche ?

Rob, first of all, I have been yanking your chain about half the time on this whole thread... I didn't realize it would be so easy.

Bill, after I mentioned social experimentation you came back with...... "FINALLY...I knew that this was one of the driving forces behind your whole argument, "Faggots" in the Military"

Essentially Bill you not only tried to turn the debate into something it wasn't about, but you essentially tried to labeled me a homophobe. If we were debating and I tried to put words in your mouth and called you say a homophobe or racist I expect you would call me on it as you should. I have never once resorted to name calling, if I have point it out. I get offended when someone would infer that I was a homophobe or change the debate into something it's not. I don't use the word faggot
and never would I think it's wrong and degrading. So Yea, I get pissed if someone tries to label me something I'm not or attribute thoughts or words that aren't mine. At this point I would epect an apology, if you don't no big deal I won't lose any sleep i'm not as thin skinned as some.

Third... While I can agree that a LOT of cuts took place in military expenditures during the years 1993-2001, I do not agree that they were more than at "any time" in history, because after WWII, as one example, they went down a LOT more than a few percentage points.

Bill I never said that he cut it more than anytime in history, I said he deployed us more than any modern president or since 75'. That's the facts. I also did say that he cut it more than Bush Sr. or Reagan, that's still true.

Nonetheless, Reagan began cuts in military programs after the massive buildup of 83-85, and Bush continued and increased those cuts, except during Desert Storm, naturally, and Clinton continued with the help of the Congress by the way, those same downward trends. But how do those facts equal "It will cost us lives today and tomorrow. ", as you stated?

How do I attribute it will cost us lives today and tomorrow ? I thought I adressed that but for one thing experienced leaders are hard to come by and especially ones with combat experinece. When the shit hits the fan, green leaders, leading green troops will make mistakes that cost lives. We lost alot of good people in the mid to late 90's who were fed up with the low pay and high deployments. They are hard to replace. Equipment was worn out or down during alot of those deployments and wasn't replaced or patched together if there was a known problem because of those exact budget cuts. Some of it fails when it's needed the most and it costs lives
We have alot fewer aircraft because some that althoguh perfectly good were canabalized because due to Bill's cuts they couldn't get some replacement parts. Less active aircraft means less force it means more sorties for pilots which stress them and the aircraft. It leads to breakdowns and mistakes, and those mistakes kill.

We have less high skill posistions that stayed and gained valuble experience. FACS for instance (Forward air controllers) Are pilots who are attached to ground units for a rotation. They are a units lifeline and we have a shortage of experinced combat pilots and the ones that are experienced are up in the air so the grunts get a new guy or someone usually less experienced. They make mistakes due to being new and it costs lives. You are left to hope that the training was adequate and he doesnt' freak out when the shit starts fying.

Ships, we've already talked about and less ships means we are offensive capabilities are lessened and we can't replace them tomorrow.

We have less troops as a number as well due to cutting force size in an effort to save money. You stated that you thought that today's soilder is more efficent than say soilders in the Gulf War. there really is no difference between the soilders OR the equipment except for a few new tools, other than that, you are looking at essentially the same equipment that we had in the Gulf. Less troops means less force. The more force you have the more the quicker and more one sided the victory is. More force means a quicker end to the conflict and American lives being saved.

1. Bush is using the forces handed to him, quite effectively so far, but he will need to increase both spending, support and manpower levels IF he plans to widen the WOT and ALSO invade Iraq, as seems to be the case and which is reported in every news source, almost daily and THAT is behind my feelings on this matter.

Agreed. I have mixed feeling as well about going back.

2. Also...That despite your "Facts" and the sources you have pointed to, there is still a quite reasonable point to be made that Clinton was not responsible for all that you have accused him of, and that he was a President who dealt mostly with a Republican controlled Congress for most of his years in office and THEY gave him budgets and can control- if they choose, how many deployments he or any other President can or do make.

False, The president sets the budget levels and congress has to approve them. The Republicans had a majority a few years but did NOT have enough of a majority to override any veto's to his budget.
They also didn't have any votes on where those troops went EXCEPT for The Bosnia I believe. (there might be one other, I will have to check) There were still over 40 other major deployments that he ordered that he didn't need congressional approval for. So they didn't have controll as you assert.

But of course, it was ALL his doing and the result was lower morale and less retention, ships and manpower...? Have I got it right?
  

It goes deep but he holds the lions share of the blame not all of it but definately the lions share. He was the Commander in Chief of the U.S Armed Forces. He could have increased the budgets, He didn't. he could have decided not to send us more than any president since Nam, He didn't. Many knew of the effect it was having and asked him for help, he didn't.

I mean, you seem to agree with a lot of what I am saying, then you blame Clinton for most everything wrong with the Military, when in fact the Military is out there playing "Cop" all over the globe and Bush is increasing both the numbers of places and numbers of men needed to continue that battle, almost daily...Even proposing sending possibly hundreds of thousands into Iraq again, without a substantial buildup first.

Why don't you kick-HIS-ass, for that?

O.K Bill, other than Afghanistan, where has Bush depolyed us to excluding the numerous missions he inherited from Willy ? (btw the op in the Phillipenes to help get rid of the alquieda dinks who killed the missionaries is already over) But if there are others please feel free to let me know.

And why wouldn't I take him to task for that ? Or kick his ass for that as you put it ? Well first of all we aren't playing world cop under him, geting involved in places we should have never been. (see list provided a few posts back) Secondly, to me trying to wipe out TERROISM and ALQUIEDA cells etc. Is just a tad more important than some of the chickenshit assignments that he handed out more than any other president since 75' It was his call to turn us into the world cop and it cost us in more ways than one.

See, while you have been pointing to numbers, I have been trying to address the "Blame" issue that you seem to find more important. That may be one reason why my sky is Green, and yours is Blue. Another might be because you detested Clinton, the man, personally.

O.K what facts have you posted ? Facts will take you to the main source of the "blame". It wasn't like I came on and said clinton sucks and didn't explain why I thought that and didn't back it up with any facts.

I don't have that problem with GDubbya, because unlike you I think he's doing "OK" so far on the WOT,

Where did I EVER say I had a problem with GDubbya on the WOT? I haven't. I think he;s doing a great job, Please stop attributing things to me that I never said.

I see the numbers you have put up there and while I agree with some of it, I don't agree with the BASIS for your argument, Rob... Therein lies the problem here, along with your very-short temper, it would seem. Not my rose-colored glasses. Now I'll try not to yank your chain so much, if you'll stop with the names and shit...K?

Bill, I have never personally attacked you, if I have show me where I have. If I had I would certainly be man enough to apologize for it. Show me where I called you names Bill ? Yes I don't put up with people trying to paint me as a homophobe and put words in my mouth which is exactly what you did. It's up to you to choose how you want to deal with what you said.

Bill,

Now it's YOU who are the one attributing things to me which I never said.

If you read back, I was implying that the DADT policy was at the root of the statement you made, about the "morale issue"? NOT that you were a Homophobe. Jesus man...So, maybe this will calm you.

And it wasn't at the root of it. And I am plenty calm by the way, Instead of asking me to clarify if that's what I meant,
you said to me.............

...... "FINALLY...I knew that this was one of the driving forces behind your whole argument, "Faggots" in the Military"

So from reading that and saying that you were attaching that word or thought to me and you know it, maybe you didn't intend to do so but that's sure the way it looks when written. As I said Bill yes I get upset when someone tries to attach a thought or a belief of mine to something that isn't true. If I do the same and someone calls me on it I would apologize immediately instead of trying to defend the indefensible if I thought I had offended someone, but that's just me. Don't worry about it Bill.

Bill,

As I said, If you go back and read it, it sure appeared that way, sorry if people do the same to you. I don't think I have, and if I had and it was pointed out I would have apologized for it, but that's just me. Don't worry about it, consider it dropped.

American flags and effigies of George Bush are burned in angry street demonstrations around the world on a regular basis.

In contrast, there are no Iraqi flags or representations of Saddam Hussein torched in similar fashion.

That reality forces us to accept that our nation, its policies and leaders, are much more -- and much more intensely -- disliked on planet Earth than Iraq, or anything it does.

That being the clear case, would it be right for the world to martial its forces to "implement a regime change" in the United States?

Of course not, even though we've got an unlected maniac as our "president".

Why?

Because there are rules and norms to international human conduct, and invading other countries just because some unbalanced misleader dislikes someone else (like Hitler disliked Poland) simply isn't right, or tolerable.

But what about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction?

To the extent that they actually still exist, they were initially made possible and available by the U.S. and its allies back when Iraq was a handy catspaw in Western machinations against Iran.

How can we now blame someone for possessing either what we originally provided them, or gave them the key capacity to ultimately develop? Why didn't we cry foul years ago? Selective morality, in incestuous relation with oppportunistic politics, is the categorical answer.

Moreover, who has vastly greater amounts of weapons of mass destruction than Iraq?

Or any other nation?

Or ALL the world's military powers combined?

The American "superpower".

Which proved its horrible madness at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and in the killing fields of Southeast Asia, as well as many other bloody locales, including Serbia and Afghanistan.

We're terribly dangerous, reckless wielders of dreadful, armed might.

Shouldn't the world step in to disarm us before we unleash Armageddon in wild furtherance of American multinational-corporate/financial objectives?

Or do you REALLY think our sons -- the kids we've lovingly looked at across the supper table for years -- wouldn't be dying in Baghdad for unfettered, selfish access to Iraq oil?!

Wake up from your 9/11 sleepwalk, people!

Good and evil have traded places.

The whole world knows it.

We ARE the Great Satan...

http://jamesglaser.org/2002/p20020805.html

COME ON KIDS, JOIN THE AIR FORCE AND GET FREE DRUGS!

US Jet fighter pilots, responsible for at least 10 deadly "friendly fire" accidents in the Afghanistan war, have regularly been given amphetamines to fly longer hours, reports William Walker of the Toronto Star. Once again Americans have to learn of our faux pas by the foreign press. Last time it was an Australian paper, the Sidney Herald breaking the TIPS program, of Americans spying on Americans...

Who ever coined that phrase SPEED KILLS never dreamed how true that could be. Every truck driver knows what "DEX" is and most people know how going on a "speed run" will really fog your mind. Combine the speed with the downers that the Air Force call no-go pills and you have a real deadly combination. Parents of service people that have died in flight accidents, should be asking this question, "Were those pilots on a roller coaster of drugs?"

(Personal note: Ashcroft's TIPS proposal would make spies of
a greater portion of the U.S. populace than were employed in such a role under East Germany's STASI secret police. Stoner pilots
and espionage neighbors. Who's that gulping Jim
Beam in the shadows? Only the anguished ghost of Tom Paine...)

When you blend the blind, unquestioning indoctrination that our service people are subjected to, with the 9/11 era's wild, vicious jingoism, AND mind-altering drugs...what's gonna happen?

"Hey, Roy. See that bunch of sparkling, paisley ragheads?"

"Uh, wha?"

"They're Talifuckinalqaida, right?"

"Uh, wha?

"BOMBS AWAY...YEE-HEE!!!"

"Wha?"

(A few days later the world press reports another of interminable incidents in which a mass of civilians have been murdered.)

You know what this world needs?

(Besides more beautiful women -- or at least one -- who'd be willing to get naked with me.)

Some kind of magic that'd make the chips on peoples' shoulders visible.

I mean, you're walking down the sidewalk, and you notice the frowning guy coming toward you has a virtual lumber yard on either side of his noggin...wouldn't that be useful in alerting you to get the heck over to the other side of the street, pronto?

Or maybe the "chips" are like potato chips.

I dunno.

Having never seen one.

If this thing I'm talking about actually existed, we could keep our wary eyes peeled for prune-faced dudes with their heads sandwiched between Giant Economy Size bags of Ripples.

Now, how do you transform a murky methaphor into something palpable, salty, greasy and
obviously evident to one and all?

Time to hit the old workbench and start tinkering...

That's genuinely very funny.

(chuckling)

You've made the world a little better place this morning, Bill.

Thanks.

WASTELAND OF THE FREE

Living in the wasteland of the free...

We got preachers dealing in politics and diamond mines
and their speech is growing increasingly unkind
They say they are Christ's disciples
but they don't look like Jesus to me
and it feels like I am living in the wasteland of the free

We got politicians running races on corporate cash
Now don't tell me they don't turn around and kiss them peoples' ass
You may call me old-fashioned
but that don't fit my picture of a true democracy
and it feels like I am living in the wasteland of the free

We got CEO's making two hundred times the workers' pay
but they'll fight like hell against raising the minimum wage
and If you don't like it, mister, they'll ship your job
to some third-world country 'cross the sea
and it feels like I am living in the wasteland of the free

Living in the wasteland of the free
where the poor have now become the enemy
Let's blame our troubles on the weak ones
Sounds like some kind of Hitler remedy
Living in the wasteland of the free

We got little kids with guns fighting inner city wars
So what do we do, we put these little kids behind prison doors
and we call ourselves the advanced civilization
that sounds like crap to me
and it feels like I am living in the wasteland of the free

We got high-school kids running 'round in Calvin Klein and Guess
who cannot pass a sixth-grade reading test
but if you ask them, they can tell you
the name of every crotch on MTV
and it feels like I am living in the wasteland of the free

We kill for oil, then we throw a party when we win
Some guy refuses to fight, and we call that the sin
but he's standing up for what he believes in
and that seems pretty damned American to me
and it feels like I am living in the wasteland of the free

Living in the wasteland of the free
where the poor have now become the enemy
Let's blame our troubles on the weak ones
Sounds like some kind of Hitler remedy
Living in the wasteland of the free

While we sit gloating in our greatness
justice is sinking to the bottom of the sea
Living in the wasteland of the free
Living in the wasteland of the free
Living in the wasteland of the free

--Iris DeMent

9/11: THE LESSON
By Dennis Rahkonen

If you open up your history books
there's one thing you will see:
How the mighty that once ruled the world
fell away and "used to be"
And as often as it wasn't so
the cause was not some "enemy"
But a rot that grew from deep within:
decadence/depravity.

We're a nation that believes its myths
and we look through biased eyes
at the angry global multitudes
that we always demonize
We pretend that they just hate success
and simply love to "terrorize"
when the truth is they have come to know
all our greed and constant lies.

There are children picking garbage
from the upper classes' waste
There's pollution from our sweatshop sites
built in selfish, reckless haste
There are freedoms that the peonized
haven't had a chance to taste
as they've hurled their curses to the sky
and the F-16's they've faced.

In ghettos and on "Indian" lands
where the poor are always found
there's an unrelenting hopelessness
of dreams crushed to the ground
And the average, low-wage working stiff
feels afraid of where he's bound
as bills are all he ever gets
when the mailman comes around.

In the boardrooms of the hierarchs
mid the silk suits and cigars
in towers built to such lofty heights
that they scrape the very stars
While the bosses study profit rates
and their graphs with pies and bars
No one sees or hears the plane approach...
might as well have come from Mars!

Now the months have flown but nothing's learned
We won't accept what's clear
We point our fingers all around
But we don't dare face the mirror
And we keep compounding our mistakes
as our reckoning draws nearer
Ours souls long for their former peace...
but we can't get there from here.

--D.R.

BEHIND THE RED, WHITE AND BLUE BLINDFOLD

Flags are waving in the breeze
commemorating victories
over "evil-doing enemies"
in wars we've waged in every place and clime.

Politicians speak cliches
on patriotic holidays
and utter only words of praise
for policies that no one sees as crime.

Our troops are stationed everywhere
our bombers cruise the foreign air
for reasons that none dare declare
just might be something less than so sublime.

Corporations' schemes unfurled
rob a prostrate, beaten world
where Apache gunships' blades have swirled
and the dirge of death is the common people's rhyme.

So go ahead and believe your lies
ignore the dying children's cries
you can't escape the watching eyes
of a God who'll judge us -- one and all -- in time.

--D.R.

Welcome back Dennis, I see your time at Ivan's I hate America refesher course and summer camp has done you well, and brought a renwewed vigor to hatred.

But welcome back, I hope you had a good time, wherever you were.

Dennis,

Good and evil have traded places.

The whole world knows it.

We ARE the Great Satan...

You wouldn't know the difference between good and evil if it bit you on your arse.
I don't know what any of your rants have to do with the thread topic but then again you've never missed an opportunity to urinate on your own country. There are plenty of other countries that would love to have you. You have claimed before to love your country, Well there are men that kill their wives that claim to love them too but it doesn't mean that they do.

Hey I think some of the logistic support troops from the Duluth reserves are coming home this week from Afgahnistan, perhaps you could go down to the airport and spit on them when they come back too.

Here is how those who hate America fight against us.

They toss grenades at nurses at a Christian hospital in Pakistan, killing three of them. They shoot firearms at a Christian missionary school in the country, killing six Pakistani employees. They attack the unarmed and helpless, and they attack them because of their faith and as a way of hitting back at Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, because he has cooperated with the United States.

It is worthwhile knowing the nature of these haters as the U.S. government plans the next step in its war on terrorism, as we devise ways to protect ourselves at home and as we listen to the self-blinded critics of this country telling us how we brought it all on ourselves.

http://24hour.startribune.com/24hour/opinions/story/496529p-3960245c.html

Sound like someone we know ?

Now this, is a good idea. It not only spreads the responsibility for fighting the forces of evil in the world, it also increases the possibility that our boys will not be the only ones to bear the burden should we have to go into Iraq.

What do you think, Rob?

Having been on a RRF team (we called it QSRF quick strike reactionary force)I think they are a good idea. The only problems that I see from being in on some blue helmet ops personally. Is who will be in command ? If they rotate and are each under their own nations command that would help, It didn't say in the article but I'm assuming one country would be in command all the time. The problems come down to communication or in the cases I was involved in where the C.O was preferential to his own troops which can lead to some bad blood and poor cohesion. That being said, if they can figure out a way to solve that I think it's a good idea.

I also think it's a good way to add some "teeth" back to NATO. Now if we would add some "Teeth" to the U.N that would help too. But I do wonder who decides where or when to go ?

Navy Sailors Used Gov't Credit Cards to Hire Prostitutes

Sailor:
"So Trixy, do you take Visa"

Trixy:
"You bet honey, remeber, Visa,,,,it's everywhere you want to be"

Or this one.

New dress blue's $120.00
Enlisted mans fund $20.00
New cologne from the p.x $15.00
Haircut & shave @ xiongs $13.00
Steam bath at Yoshi's $10.00
Dinner at Sokiyu's $14.00
Bottle of Jim Beam $16.00
Bribe for M.P's $20.00

Getting a nasty case of the clap on leave............
Priceless.

How do they scan the card ? Oh never mind I don't want to know.

"When I press my boobs together, it becomes a credit card scanner. There, no swipe it through."

I think there are some STDs that could be considered "dishonorable discharges".

Bill,

You were talking about this on the other thread I beleive too. i was going to mention it but it got buried in the posts from the weekend so I'm glad you brought it up here.

First of all I do think other nations will get on board as well. But I would like to ask this. Do you think that these other countries aren't doing what's best for them ?

Russia, China, France etc. etc. all have their own motives and it has nothing to do with being an ally.

Some people are making alot out of having fewer nations participate. Many want to use the U.N as political cover. But there can also be advantages to having a smaller coalition. First and foremost the U.S and Great Britain did most of the heavy lifting in 91' anyway. Yes there was assistance from some other nations, but with the exception of France the U.S and G.B did most of the heavy stuff. The advantages in some ways are that communication and coordinating of troops is easier, friend or foe is more easily identified, battle philosiphy is simplified as well. You know what they say about too many cooks.

It's also many of these nations that were involved in the Gulf War that stopped us from continuing on to Bagdahd. As Rick correctly pointed out it was a fragile coalition and many of these nations out of their own motives stopped us from finishing the job. Bush Sr. Knew that, he shouldn't have listened and made a mistake in my opinion. So the same nations and U.N who stopped us from taking Sadamn out in 91' are not on board. We listened to them in 91' and look what happened. Perhaps in some way we are better off without them and without there input since they were wrong last time too.

Well John McCain is very supportive and is in agreement with the President. And remember he ran against him in the primary.
You say he's not as talented at building coalitions ? It's the admin that does the diplomatic work for the most part and look who he has, many that were there in 91', Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, etc.
Do you have anything showing where his own admin disagree with him ?

I'm glad you brought up Afghanistan, The same exact people, the U.N, France, Germany etc are the same crowd that don't want us to simply leave Afghanistan, they are quick to criticize when we are still there and there is still much work to be done. But are they doing anything to help ? Not much, the U.N could have a peace keeping force in there tomorrow, they haven't. They have to debate for another 7 years. And it's much easier for these countries to criticize for political reasons than it is to do anything, reminds me of a certain poster from the north country ;)

And again it's these same countries and U.N that stopped us from finishing the job in 91' and yet people are worried about listening to them ? To me this is a time in history when you find out who your REAL allies and friends are. The actions by these countries says alot and it's nothing to do with disagreeig, it's for political and monetary gain. I guess it's o.k when other nations do it, just not us.

BTW, do you have a link or recent quotes showing that Powell disagrees with the president ? Just curious.

Obviously, Powell will neither confirm nor deny his disagreements, nor will Rumsfeld, nor Tennet. However, story after story exists that claim "High Officials" as their sources for the continuing rift that seems to exist within the White House, on just what exactly we should do.

And there you go, it's political gossip. They "claim" this or that. I have never once heard Powell HIMSELF say that he disagrees with the President etc. Does he agree 100% Probably not, that's why you have advisors, to do just that, ....advise. Otherwise it's gossip, remember Cynthia McKinney who was a member of congress and her remarks. Was she right too ?

Bill,

What is surprising is only that you cannot seem to acknowledge the "fact", especially since he is not the only person within the administration "Rumored" to hold this same opinion and "trepidation" about going into a prolonged war in that area, and especially, taking and holding Iraq for years, if neccessary. You don't need me running hither and yon finding you stories in the press about it. I dare say that I think I know you well enough that you could not be for such a thing...?

I'll make you a deal. You admit that we haven't cut education and I'll admit that Powell wants to do the war differently. :)

Kidding aside if we are going to go in my fear would be if we left to early and we end up with Sadamns' kid or someone worse, perhaps an extreme Whabbi'ist sect of radical Muslims who turn the joint into another Syria etc. That would be my biggest fear that if we do go in that we get rid of him and open the barn door to every whack job in the Middle East (and there's alot of em')

Political and politicly motivated stories happen all the time. I have no doubt that Powell, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Bush, Franks, Etc. all disagree on the way to do things, they all DO agree that he needs to be removed and then it comes down to how to do it. Think of your circle of friends, you probably all agree on many things but differ sometimes on the best way to do it. There was a story or rumor that Powell was going to resign over it. I saw him being interviewed by Charlie Rose one night after that "story" had broken. He laughed about it and said it was ludicrous. He also said that he took into consideration the President's political philosiphy before he ever accepted the job. He essentially said if he thought he and the President were that far apart philosophically he wouldn't have said yes. He laughed off the rumor and basically said he didn't know where people get that idea from. So this story as well could be the same thing.

Here's the thing. Powell I believe is a man of high honor he has publicly said he believes Sadamn should go, he believes him to be a grave threat and wants him gone even IF it includes force. If he disagreed that much I do believe Powell would resign.