Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Jan 11, 2007.
That really seems like a criminal misuse of America's military, and arguably benefits our real enemies while weakening our national defense.
And righties want to argue that Clinton broke the military. Look what Bush has wrought upon it. Bush has gutted the military, and left America without the ability to handle a major crisis without immediately resorting to nuclear weapons.
I always chuckle when people talk about how the military is stretched too thin or that our national defense is weak. The U.S. could probably wage three wars at once with its current active military. The U.S. is second only to China in its standing army. 660,000 troops were sent to Kuwait in Operation Desert Storm.
There were 660,000 coalition troops in total for Desert Storm. Considering Saudi Arabia deployed over 100,000, the UK sent 43,000, Egypt 40,000, the Emirates 40,000, Oman 20,000, France 18,000, Bangladesh 6,000, plus well over 10,000 exiles from Kuwait itself and smaller deployments from more than 20 other countries, the number of US forces on the ground was considerably smaller than the 660,000 quoted.
You're doin' a heckuva job there, Dubya.
go ahead a dispute the facts but it wont change them.
What King George should do is take those 20,000 troops who are going to be wasted in Iraq and send them after a guy named OSAMA in Afghanistan/Pakistan.
He promised to get Osama and lied to us again.
May I quote from Wikipedia?
As you so cleverly pointed out, disputing the facts won't change them.
and your point is? thats exactly where i got the figures from.
The clear implication in this post is that the US standing army is so large that it could afford to send 660,000 US troops, isn't it? Or are you just playing silly buggers?
SF is still going to Afghanistan.
I don't want to speak to everybody in SF, but everybody in my brother's little circle of friends that's about to be sent out prays for a deployment to Afghanistan. Iraq is seen as the clusterf*** where there is no hope, idea, sense, or point - and where you'll be surrounded by a regular Army folk that are sadly under-trained for the situation they are in, feel the same way, have no idea what's going on, and have no idea what to do.
One of my brother's two best friends just headed out to Afghanistan at the beginning of this month to join his ODA.
From what I've heard from them, they don't mind going there. It's much more of a "there's the bad dudes over there, let's get them" versus Iraq.
I'm sure they'll all be pulled out to fight in Iraq, so those pesky trrrrrrrrrists don't steal our freedom.
It would be interesting to compare the U.S. Army personnel numbers between the times of G.W. and Clinton. I've tried a Google search with no results. If anyone could to get those numbers, I think it would be most helpfull to this thread.
Damn straight! You're entitled to your own set of opinions, but not your own set of facts.
By the way, if the military isn't stretched thin -- which I believe was your original assertion in this thread -- why are we having to remove troops from the Afghan theater to augment the forces in Iraq? If our military is as robustly staffed as you claim it is, why do we not have enough soldiers to fully staff BOTH theaters?
Or is this story about soldiers being pulled from Afghanistan a lie, just another example of liberalmediabias?
The biggest weakness is national defence policy.
Then why didn't you provide a link and acknowledge that only 74% or 488.400 of them were Americans? Certainly your intent wasn't to mislead?
I dont know, do you? My point is that the military is not stretched thin.
If they need to, they can move people around pretty well.
So we have at least 488,000 troops. Thanks for doing the math.
for the actual numbers click here:
What is stretched thin is the money to pay for all of this. The US budget deficit has averaged around $400 milliard* a year since Bush came to office, meaning the US national debt has grown by over 40% in just six years and now stands at a little over $8 billion*. That's $30,000 of debt for every single man, woman and child in the United States, the interest for which is paid for through your taxes.
Makes your credit card bill seem a little easier to manage doesn't it.
* European definitions of milliard and billion used. 1 milliard = 1 thousand million. 1 billion = 1 million million.
Then why can't we handle even one?
I have a friend who was pulled from Afghanistan to be sent to Iraq. It keeps happening. The 'stans, where the real terrorists are, are getting worse as we pull more resources from the area to attempt to fix the problems in Iraq. Meanwhile look what's going on in NK and possibly even Iran. We couldn't do anything about them if we wanted to. And look around. We don't. No one trusts the current administration to deal with things because they obviously can't.
So, yeah, our military is stretched too far.
Then why is the new SecDef asking to increase the size of the Army and Marines? If we're as robustly staffed as you say, why do we need a bigger military? Why are people on their third or fourth deployments? Why are NG members routinely sent on 18-month deployments? Why has the 24 month limit on NG deployments been revoked? Why are stop-loss orders used? Why are recruiter standards being lowered?
For fun? Because the top brass want to be dicks? Or because they have no other options for coming up with troops?
What's next, shall we remove forces from the DMZ to augment our forces in Iraq?
And don't say you don't know. You know damn well why, you just won't say it.
I believe I've stated the facts on a few occations. You can believe what you want.
War is allways easier for those not fighting it, or for those who never served or for those who have no children fighting. Funny the administration fits all three categories here.
the country with the biggest "defense" budget of the world, by far
and it still doesn't have enough troops
so much for irony
They are stretched thin its why the new defense dude gates is asking for 95,000 more troops. Its not because we have enough troops its because we dont have enough troops for Bush's foolishness such as Iraq.
Which set of your stated facts am I to believe?
Follow the Administration's lead: believe only the "facts" which suit your argument. Or, if there aren't any, make them up.