CAN YOU NAME THIS COUNTRY?

[BoratSagdiyev]

CAN YOU NAME THIS COUNTRY?



~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



The UK? NO



FRANCE? WRONG AGAIN ( What a Laugh!)



MUST BE USA? STILL WRONG (SORT OF)


GIVE UP?



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

If you help John Kerry get elected, we won't have any effective U.S.
Military capability left. Please tell your friends.

SLEEP WELL!

This was sent to my by a friend....if it's intent is to make me say "hey we need more nukes and more weapons" it failed to do so.

Remember campers...the only thing we have to fear is China itself.What are your takes on what the world will be like if China beame a "democracy"

 

[xpanda]

People seem to forget that Clinton inherited the post-Cold War military, not the peace-time one. He figured Americans could move forward with a reduction in the threat of force, using diplomacy as a guide. He was right, until Bush happened. Now you gotta build your military back up. I think Kerry gets this and will work to add troops, not reduce them. Reelect Bush, and you could be facing a draft.

 

[FRAZZIL]

UGANDY!

 

[Seymour]

For some reason I fell out military is fine right now and more than sufficient to defend the US against any enemy - if you want to criticize our intelligence that's another story - you are aware that the enemy does not own one single plane or boat.

 

[SENDITIN]

He figured Americans could move forward with a reduction in the threat of force, using diplomacy as a guide

This strategy worked very well against Al Qaeda.

 

[xpanda]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SENDITIN:
_He figured Americans could move forward with a reduction in the threat of force, using diplomacy as a guide_

This strategy worked very well against Al Qaeda. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, and Bush's military action did what exactly???

 

[SENDITIN]

Taliban regime...ousted
Sadaam regime...ousted
2/3 of Al Qaeda leadership...dead or captured
No attacks on Amer. Soil since 9/11

Long way to go..but nice start

 

[xpanda]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SENDITIN:
Taliban regime...ousted <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. Thus far the only example of military force that was justified and necessary (although not without its critics and likely ulterior motives.)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Sadaam regime...ousted <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nothing to do with AQ or the 'War on Terror' unless you're a fan of rhetoric and political talking points. Besides, this is a great example of how poorly Bush handled diplomacy -- you could have had more support, and might be winning this thing, had he taken a page or two from Clinton's book.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>2/3 of Al Qaeda leadership...dead or captured <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am quite sure that is a debatable, tho oft-quoted statistic, but it also does not bear in mind the current support that AQ enjoys in the MidEast as a direct result of the decision to choose military force over diplomacy or multilateralism.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>No attacks on Amer. Soil since 9/11 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know that you know that this is a weak argument. The remaining 1/3 of AQ leadership, if the stats are to be believed, are sending your law enforcement officials into a tizzy these days. Either you're in the clear or you're not, but you can't support both sides of that argument depending on what day of the week it is.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Long way to go..but nice start <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most people, with the Bush admin duly excepted, concede that a combination of military force and diplomacy are needed to reduce terrorism world-wide. Military force in Afghanistan was justifiable and needed. Military force in Iraq took the place of diplomacy and international cooperation, which will hinder the now-needed law enforcement efforts of the global community that the US will rely on. The latest intelligence that led to code orange did not come from military action, but from diplomacy and cooperation. Think about it.

 

[SENDITIN]

Clinton's book? That got the people killed in NY. How many shots at Bin Laden did he have? What do you think Sandy Burglar was stuffing down his pants and or changing?

And why is Al Qaeda in Iraq now? There's no link so why do they care? Why was their current mastermind healing his wounds in a Baghdad hospital before the Iraq war? And if there is no "link" and they are fighting us over there...does that mean those same guys aren't over here trying to kill us?

To think someone like Sadaam wouldn't provide WMD's to Al Qaeda is naive. And speaking of WMD's take a glance at Tommy Franks new book. Mubarek and Abdullah of Jordan told him point blank he has them. Guess everyone is lying. I still say we find them....

P.S. Has anyone seen what the Israeli intel said at that time...NOBODY is better than those guys.

 

[PatPatriot]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> He figured Americans could move forward with a reduction in the threat of force, using diplomacy as a guide. He was right <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

N. korea worked out real well.
Al Q's balls grew when he was in office.
Sudan with black hawk down worked out just ducky. (Working with the UN)
Libya was still working nuke plans, they really listen to reason.
Yeah your right Bill "iszu" Clinton was a regular jimmy carter.

I am surprized that we didn't try to use diplomacy with Jeffery Dahmer,Charles Manson et al.
Because what your trying to do is use diplomacy with the same type of people.

 

[jimbutorac]

The Republicans always crack me up when they critiize Clinton for weakening the military.

After Reagan and his Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney started drawdown of military back when I got out of the Corps in 1987. They were offering early outs all over the Marine Corps.

At one point, Cheney even was quoted as saying something to the effect of, "You can give me more F-16s, more tanks, and so forth but I already got more than I need".

Bush further accelerated draw-down after Persian Gulf War. Clinton continued that trend.

But ignorant Republicans like Sean Hannity blast Clinton for reduction in tanks. Note to Hannnity and Republicans: The Cold War is over. There will be no massive tank battles.

Rumsfeld is on record as wanting to make military even smaller.

So what we have in effect, is USA reduced the size of the Armed Forces as part of the so-called "peace dividend" which both parties agreed to do. As soon as current Admininstration tries to unsuccessfully occupy two countries at once, all of a sudden it is the Dems fault for weakening the military.

When JCS General Shinseki candidly albeit reluctantly put forth his opinion that we would need hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq he was subsequently shit-canned cause that disagreed with the rosy views of Rumsfled and Cheney.

Btw, we have the strongest most dominant, technologically advanced military in the world.

Nice try at revising history, boys. Go back and swallow some more kool-aid.

 

[Marco]

Everybody knows that unless a country has enough military vessels in the water to enable someone to walk across the ocean to another continent, that one is grossly understaffed...

We could also use about 20 times the existing stock of nuclear weapons, just in case the amount that we have that could destroy the planet 10 times over isn't enough....

 

[BoratSagdiyev]

Regardless if we had a greater force it would not prevent them from doing what they did. Do you think they would have cared if we had a million stealth bombers? They are willing to die for their cause...retaliation by us does not matter to them .QUOTE]Originally posted by SENDITIN:
_He figured Americans could move forward with a reduction in the threat of force, using diplomacy as a guide_

This strategy worked very well against Al Qaeda.[/QUOTE]

 

[SENDITIN]

Again Borat you're not going to use diplomacy against Al Qaeda. I wasn't talking about force size or the threat of force, I was talking about pre-emption.

 

[BoratSagdiyev]

Do you know what preemption means? It means changing their religious beliefs. This is good but what do you do with Christians and Jews. Do you tell them that miracles didn't really happen as they were written in the bible.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SENDITIN:
Again Borat you're not going to use diplomacy against Al Qaeda. I wasn't talking about force size or the threat of force, I was talking about pre-emption. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>