Clinton-era Military

[melon]

Well, I find it interesting. Clinton's approach to the military was haughtily criticized by the right for not being strong enough.

However...

Bush has not been in long enough, and there were really too many legislative battles to prevent him from doing anything with the military in terms of spending increases. Even at that, it takes time for such spending to actually take effect. Hence, the military you see now attacking Afghanistan is the Clinton military, although, most certainly, as Bush is in office longer and now that increased military spending is most certain, it will eventually be shaped to his liking. Regardless, the military is not so "weak" after all, yes?

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

 

[melon]

Well, if I remember right, you made the same assertion yourself, but couldn't stay away either, polka king.

I'm really delving into religious debate--just in a different forum mostly, as this one seems to be just too focused on the war, which, overall, I am bored silly debating over. I just find this to be an interesting topic that everyone has seemingly overlooked.

When I find interesting non-war related politics, I'm sure I'll write more on it. As it stands, any debate I'd make on war would simply be repeating myself.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

 

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by melon:
Well, if I remember right, you made the same assertion yourself, but couldn't stay away either, polka king.

I remember getting "caught"! I felt about "this" (spreads arms open wide) stupid. However, I think I had said at that time that I was going away for a while to cool off, but I don't think I said forever. If I did, I guess we've got the same "couldn't stay away" disease.

 

[The Wanderer]

oh and you'd never repeat yourself, eh melon?!?!

 

[melon]

Well, I see my topic is being ignored. The consequences of life...

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

 

[U2Bama]

Okay, Melon, since you insist:

I have been fairly comfortable, so far, with the military, which is still mainly in the same state and condition as it was under Clinton and Bush #1 before him, at least from the viewpoint of Citizen Bama. I have a few friends who were in the Marines and/or Navy from roughly 92 - 97, and they didn't seem to have problems with morale or anything.

I will also say that I supported, and continue to support, most of the military action that Clinton took while in office. And though I laughed at the "Wag the Dog" subplot of the bombings in Sudan and Afghanistan (after the Kenya/Tanzania embassy bombings) I did support the prompt action he took, and I am still not convinced that the target in Sudan was ONLY a pharmaceutical plant.

Also, I always admired General Shelton, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Clinton, and somewhat wished they would have let him carry through on this current campaign.

Surprised?

~U2Alabama

 

[80sU2isBest]

Just curious, Melon, what happened to your repeated assertions that you were through with all political discussions at interference? Just couldn't stay away from us, could you?

 

[melon]

Actually it doesn't surprise me. To condemn the Clinton military would be to condemn the current military right now.

But, seriously, it does sound like you--not your usual, hysterically conservative Republican.

I'm still waiting for the other political conservatives to comment on this. Where are you all?? Don't want to give Clinton some credit for once?

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

 

[Lemonite]

Here's my little take on this issure... Ok.. i will grant the point that this is still the Clinton Military... But.. what we are seeing is a BUSH/Powell/CHANEY/Rumsfeld run Clinton military.. Which makes a complete world of difference, thankfully, clinton couldn't completely decimate the military, and I'm sure the generals or officers wouldn't let their army slip away.. but it's like if a great coach and leader comes into a football team with no talent and then takes them to greatness.. Sort of like what Lou Holtz did to the 0-11 South Carolina Gamecocks.. This year.. 5-1... Though not saying we were an 0-11 military.. But i don't think you would get too much opposition to the statement that if all of china came to invade us at the moment, it's not certain we'd be able to stop the invasion... I guess we can just be thankful that bush and chaney got in office,

 

[whammy]

Melon, I disagree with so many of your posts.

But, I agree with this one!

As most have seen or I should say read, I'm pretty conservative and very American. My harsh and cold opinions of the current campaign are called, "ignorant" but oh well! Those statements are like raindrops so eventually, they dry up.

I've been in the Military(Navy) since 94. I've always said that it pays to have a Republican in Office because, as history has proven, they pay us more.

And yes, the Military has "Down-sized" the past ten years. But what took three people to accomplish before, is now done by one individual.
In the long run, it costs alot more to keep three times as many people, for example, in Navy than putting more money into Weapons Advancement research. Also, fewer people required so.....higher standards to qualify.

So, enough of that! That's all the BRAZO ZULU's (Well-Done) Democrats will get from me!

GOD BLESS AMERICA

 

[U2Bama]

But, Lemonite, that 0-11 team was in Holtz's first year; last year, I think they went 8-4, even losing to my lousy 3-8 team but capping the season with a win over Ohio State. By that example, the Taliban and whomever we play this year (Bush's first year) will destroy us 11 times over!

~U2Alabama

 

[speedracer]

Originally posted by melon:


I'm still waiting for the other political conservatives to comment on this. Where are you all?? Don't want to give Clinton some credit for once?

Are you asking me?

I don't think I've engaged in any Clinton-bashing since I've been here.

I don't know how much credit Clinton deserves for the current state of the military.

Wow, this was an incredibly content-free post.

 

[Matthew_Page2000]

Not to rain on anyone's parade but prior to 9/11 Bush didn't intend to build the military all that much. He wanted massively increased military SPENDING but an overwhelming majority of it was for a missile defense plan. Not more troops, tanks, planes, ships or guns. In other words, despite criticizing Clinton publically for military cuttbacks Bush wasn't planning on doing anything about it. Reason being that the cuts seemed like a good idea at the time. How, or whether 9/11 will change this I haven't a clue.

MAP

p.s.- It's really easy to criticize Presidents decision making with the benefit of hindsight. For instance Dubya's daddy made a horrendous mistake when he didn't take Saddam out during the Gulf War. It seems reasonably likely that the Anthrax being used to kill Americans now came from Iraq. When we attack Iraq (and we ARE going to attack Iraq in some manner) a lot of people are going to die. Maybe a lot of Americans this time. All of which could have been avoided if Bush Sr. had acted decisively during Desert Storm.

p.p.s.- It could get a lot worse. Iraq has smallpox.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Yeah, even after Clinton, our military is not so weak that we can't bomb Afghanistan forward to the Stone Age.

But, that isn't an especially difficult test (especially compared to using ground troops), you need to remember that the Republican Congress went a long way in bringing a LOT of Clinton's proposals back into reality, AND our intelligence system is in shambles.

The current bombings demonstrate that Clinton didn't demoralize or dismantle the military beyond recognition, but it is also clear that his administration did SERIOUS damage to our ability to gather intelligence.

(In case you're wondering, I will agree that Clinton did do some good: he DID sign the budgets that would lead to surpluses--after vetoing the same thing two or three times and villifying the GOP--and he did sign NAFTA.)

My point is this, melon: NOT dismantling the military is not a great achievement. Sure, he deserves credit for at least that, but it's not the same thing as building up the military or taking serious the threat of bin Ladin -- especially after the attempted assassination of the elder Bush, the (first) bombing of the World Trade Center, the bombing of two U.S. embassies, and the attack on the U.S.S. Cole.

So, I guess Clinton deserves credit for merely making a mess -- and not fucking us up beyond all hope of recovery.

Bubba

 

[z edge]

Melon
I know we have been down this path before, and i will briefly touch my point. I like Clinton for trying to make peace, I dislike him for fucking up the military and weak attempts to solve situations with a couple of cruise missles and a press confrence.

 

[z edge]

Originally posted by Matthew_Page2000:
Not to rain on anyone's parade but prior to 9/11 Bush didn't intend to build the military all that much. He wanted massively increased military SPENDING but an overwhelming majority of it was for a missile defense plan. Not more troops, tanks, planes, ships or guns. In other words, despite criticizing Clinton publically for military cuttbacks Bush wasn't planning on doing anything about it. Reason being that the cuts seemed like a good idea at the time. How, or whether 9/11 will change this I haven't a clue.

MAP

p.s.- It's really easy to criticize Presidents decision making with the benefit of hindsight. For instance Dubya's daddy made a horrendous mistake when he didn't take Saddam out during the Gulf War. It seems reasonably likely that the Anthrax being used to kill Americans now came from Iraq. When we attack Iraq (and we ARE going to attack Iraq in some manner) a lot of people are going to die. Maybe a lot of Americans this time. All of which could have been avoided if Bush Sr. had acted decisively during Desert Storm.

p.p.s.- It could get a lot worse. Iraq has smallpox.

First off you are wrong, it has been widely publicized ( and liberally criticized ) that Bush #43 intends to beef up our military personnel.

Secondly, back to 'desert storm', Bush#41 did exactly as he should have given his intelligence data. He was the leader of the CIA before being VP for 8 years. That was back when we had a CIA. They told him that we had won and we didn't need to go any further because there would be an uprising of the people who would overthrow saddam and we wouldn't have to lose any lives trying to be 'mercenaries'.

We now know the CIA was wrong then as they are now. Yes he should have finished the job, but he was doing what seemed best at the time.

 

[STING2]

The Military was strained during the Clinton years and many high skilled people left because of overdeployment and low pay. But I think most of my critical points focus on new weapon systems that have not been built or cancelled because of cost, and I don't mean NMD either.
While many will call this a Clinton military, one could argue that it is still a Reagan military in that many of the fine weapon systems that are in use today were built and brought into service during the Reagan years, despite strong resistance put up by Democrats!
Many of the weapon systems are old and need to eventually be replaced. The research and Development, Procurement area's for some types of weapon systems were nearly eliminated during the Clinton era.
To the current situation. Not that this says anything about the Clinton admin., but the current operation has only averaged 100 strikes per day. In Kosovo it was 500, and in the Gulf War, it was 1,500. Right now the operation in my view is still limited and small and has yet to devolop. But things are just starting, and as someone has said before, Clinton did nothing for Intelligence during his era. Which seems to be one of the issue's were struggling with at the moment.

 

[U2Bama]

It's also relevant to remember that some of the (then) Democratic Senators such as Nunn, Mitchell and Shelby (now a Republican) were ardent supporters of a strong military, and its consistent (as I believe it to be) performance is due a bit to them looking out for it regardless of who was President.

~U2Alabama