NO and Iraq
 

Re: NO and Iraq
 

The answer to both questions is the one you did not provide:

"Whichever requires the most based on the professional assessment"

Or are you just looking for an emotional (perhaps irrational) response?

Re: NO and Iraq
 

Isn't it great that we have troops in Germany, S Korea, Guam, Middle East, and who knows where else. Spread very thin with weekend warriors left stateside.

Bases being closed.

With the incompetence in Iraq and New Orleans, you have to wonder what kind of defense we are left with in this country against foreign attack--especially with the previous two draft dodgers as commanders-in-chief.

It's almost as if the 'people' in charge of this country for many years have wanted the defense of this country to become perilous.

Do we really need to protect the previously mentioned countries? I say no. Doing so costs to much in terms of money and self defense logistics.

Re: NO and Iraq
 

[ QUOTE ]
Bases being closed.

[/ QUOTE ]

This actually saves military manpower. Each facility open requires a staff of people to maintain it, who can't be used for other activites.

[ QUOTE ]
It's almost as if the 'people' in charge of this country for many years have wanted the defesne of this country to become perilous.


[/ QUOTE ]

This was true during the Clinton when the military was cut deeply. We can't turn around such reductions as quickly as we'd like.

Re: NO and Iraq
 

[ QUOTE ]
This was true during the Clinton when the military was cut deeply. We can't turn around such reductions as quickly as we'd like.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe Rumsfeild said he didn't want to increase the size of the US military only change its structure.

Stu

Re: NO and Iraq
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This was true during the Clinton when the military was cut deeply. We can't turn around such reductions as quickly as we'd like.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe Rumsfeild said he didn't want to increase the size of the US military only change its structure.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Which was not an easy task given what he was left with.

It is not just about numbers.

Re: NO and Iraq
 

I am jealous of your life, to see every issue in the entire world as black and white, George Bush is infallible, all problems are either caused by Clinton or other Democrats.

If I could see everything so simplistically, I would, I'm sure live the blissfull life you do.

Of course I'd be functionally retarded, but life would be pleasant nontheless.

Re: NO and Iraq
 

[ QUOTE ]
I am jealous of your life, to see every issue in the entire world as black and white, George Bush is infallible, all problems are either caused by Clinton or other Democrats.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clinton did decimate the military and the intelligence agencies and Bush screwed up post Saddam Iraq.

Hows that for fair and balanced.

Stu

Re: NO and Iraq
 

I am not arguing a single point of his, I am saying that if historians ever decided to study what they would refer to as Broken Glass Can's "Body of Work" they would not argue my hypothesis.

Thank you for listening.

Re: NO and Iraq
 

[ QUOTE ]
Clinton did decimate the military and the intelligence agencies and Bush screwed up post Saddam Iraq.

Hows that for fair and balanced.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]
So Clinton destroyed 1/10 of the military and intelligence agencies and Bush screwed up Iraq. Sounds about right to me.

And what's this post Saddam Iraq thing? What did he do pre- and during the war that wasn't screwed up (apart from having the most sophisticated military force in the world win against a poor and unresourced country?)

Re: NO and Iraq
 

[ QUOTE ]
if historians ever decided to study what they would refer to as Broken Glass Can's "Body of Work"

[/ QUOTE ]

What makes you think that this is not already happening?

Re: NO and Iraq
 

[ QUOTE ]
So Clinton destroyed 1/10 of the military and intelligence agencies and Bush screwed up Iraq. Sounds about right to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually 1/3 would be more accurate than 1/10th.

[ QUOTE ]
And what's this post Saddam Iraq thing? What did he do pre- and during the war that wasn't screwed up (apart from having the most sophisticated military force in the world win against a poor and unresourced country?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Well Bush did screw up on the wmd issue. I have always maintained(even before the invasion) that wmd was just an excuse and we were going to Iraq for other reasons. However it did cost Bush a ton of credibility because we couldn't find any significant wmd. Thats a pretty major error.

The invasion itself seemed pretty successful to me. Something military leaders around the world are going to study anyways.

I think most of the blame for 911 falls on Clinton. He pretty much did nothing significant about Al Queda even though the were bombing our embassys and blowing holes in our ships.

Face it, we have crappy leaders be them republican or democrat(although the democrats tend to be slightly worse imo).

Stu

Re: NO and Iraq
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This was true during the Clinton when the military was cut deeply. We can't turn around such reductions as quickly as we'd like.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe Rumsfeild said he didn't want to increase the size of the US military only change its structure.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Rummy also said in 2003 he could wage a 3 front war without conscription based on his current troop levels.