If this ever comes to pass I will leave the country. I know the U.S. is the greatest country in the world but if she is elected president it will be the ruin of us all.
Hillary in 2008!
- Thread starter Medellon
- Start date
What could she do in 4 years that's worse than what politicians have been doing here for decades?
So can someone explain to me why the hatred of Hillary? I am honestly not familiar with her policies.
Lets see...socialized medicine, the continuation of partial-birth abortion, government sponsored day-care, the legalization of same-sex unions, dismantling the military, and numerous other social programs designed to take from the rich and give to the poor.
first and foremeost, there is no such thing as a "partial-birht" abortion, just a nasty term cooked up by the wacko right to lifers.
We already have govt sponsored daycare, in various forms, just not enough.
Same sex unions being denied are exactly the types of social injustice based on religious grounds the constitution was written to protect the people from, believe what you want, don't force anyone else to live by your religous code though.
Dismantling the military? Like her hubby did/ looks to me like he did one hell of a job. The army we deployed in Iraq was the result of Clinton's decisions. Sure he downsaized the forces, he also modernized the equipment, creating a better equipped, better trained, and more powerfull force than when he assumed office. Notice the difference between 1991 and the last war in Iraq. That is Reagan's big dollar military (1991) against Clinton's "gutted" force. Are you suggesting Bush made all those changes?
Why has the income disparity in this country between the rich and the poor grown?
Hillary's national medical plan was eerily similar to the one our very own members of congress enjoy, for free of course. Top class care, why didn't they want us to enjoy the same benefits we provide for them? Why don't you?
Back when she was pushing that BS healthcare program I read some of the things she said to ordinary citizens who asked her questions. I could tell right away that she was a cold-hearted, smartmouthed bitch. When Whitewater and all of the myriad little dramas it spawned were playing out I realized that she was a lying, devious, cold-hearted, smartmouth bitch. Although it is hard to find people that I think would make a worse president than Bush, I would have to give Hillary and Al Sharpton serious consideration.
He didn't do any of those things. '92-'98 were lean years in the military and it was only in '98 when many people in the Congress finally realized what was happening to the military and decided to put a stop to it.
Clinton had Congressional help as he was continuing the Bush plan for downsizing. He gets zero credit for making it better or even maintaining the status quo.
HillaryCare turned into TriCare or at least the first phase of it. I am limited by this forums bandwith or I could share a gazillion horror stories from that fiasco.
it was lean, they closed bases, no raises, but the work was being done, the changes were in effect. The technology was being produced and implemented.
Just the amount of testing alone beforre anything is used in combat tells you very litle if anything used was produced under the current administration. I will readily admit I was concerned with the military under Clinton, especailly long term effects, but after seing his army in action I must say he left the forces in far better shape than he found them in every way except morale, which changed the day he left office anyway.
Just the amount of testing alone beforre anything is used in combat tells you very litle if anything used was produced under the current administration. I will readily admit I was concerned with the military under Clinton, especailly long term effects, but after seing his army in action I must say he left the forces in far better shape than he found them in every way except morale, which changed the day he left office anyway.
Now do you really think the framers of the Constitution were thinking of same-sex marriages when it was written? As far as the disparity between the rich and the poor, who's fault is that...the government? The government forces people to drop out of high school, get pregnant, go on welfare and stay there? The government was not designed to take care of people in this way. For the vast majority of people it's their own damn fault that they're poor...the government shouldn't be obligated to bail them out because of their poor choices in life.
Nope, but they knew religous people can't help but try to force their morals (based on their religous belief) on others, as in this case.
Is this not what is happening, why would you say they should not be legal then?
The technology was not being developed and implemented, there was no money for training, no money for spare parts, aircraft fuel, people were leaving in droves, etc., etc. etc. The missions did not change but we were doing it with less. A lot less. The saying around the services all through the '90's was "Do more, with less." The Trident program was having to fight for every dime it could get just to keep boats at sea so you can rest assured everyone was having to "make do".
BTW, just to be clear, I have been on active duty since May 1984. Where do you draw your info.?
OK. In the early 90's, when I was in GA, no Doctor within 40 miles would accept TriCare and the base clinic was too understaffed to see anyone but active duty.
So Bush came in a little over 2 years ago, scrapped everything Clinton had done, researched, developed, tested, and implemented all the radical changes we saw?
Incredible.....
Do more with less, sounds exactly like what we just did. Half the forces, and accomplished more in a shorter time with historically unheard of collatoral damage, im my opinion, the greatest legacy of this action.
Incredible.....
Do more with less, sounds exactly like what we just did. Half the forces, and accomplished more in a shorter time with historically unheard of collatoral damage, im my opinion, the greatest legacy of this action.
DoD Secretary ASPIN (Georgetown University, 9/2/93):
"In December of 1991, a presidential hopeful named Bill Clinton gave a major speech outlining a vision for America's national security in the post-cold war era. In that speech, Bill Clinton outlined a number of objectives, but his number one objective was this: He said, and I quote, 'We must restructure our military forces for a new era.' Well, consider it done.
"I'm pleased to be back at Georgetown to announce the fulfillment of this pledge."
During President Bush's term the Pentagon developed what it called the "Base Force" to adapt to the changing world. Under this "Base Force" plan, military spending was going to go from $286 billion in 1993 to $289 billion in 1997. All in all, George Bush planned to spend $1,424,000,000,000, about as much as was spent at the height of the cold war.
President Clinton plans to spend almost as much: a total of $1,351,000,000,000. This is only 5 percent less than what President Bush was planning to spend.
Under Bush's plan, active duty personnel levels were supposed to go to 1,568,000, a reduction of 11 percent. President Clinton plans to go to 1.4 million active duty people. This is
11 percent less than the Bush plan.
Under President Bush's plan, the number of Army divisions, Navy ships and Air Force wings were to be slightly reduced.
President Clinton's military will look like this.
As you can see, President Clinton is planning to make only marginal reductions from the Bush plan.
"In December of 1991, a presidential hopeful named Bill Clinton gave a major speech outlining a vision for America's national security in the post-cold war era. In that speech, Bill Clinton outlined a number of objectives, but his number one objective was this: He said, and I quote, 'We must restructure our military forces for a new era.' Well, consider it done.
"I'm pleased to be back at Georgetown to announce the fulfillment of this pledge."
During President Bush's term the Pentagon developed what it called the "Base Force" to adapt to the changing world. Under this "Base Force" plan, military spending was going to go from $286 billion in 1993 to $289 billion in 1997. All in all, George Bush planned to spend $1,424,000,000,000, about as much as was spent at the height of the cold war.
President Clinton plans to spend almost as much: a total of $1,351,000,000,000. This is only 5 percent less than what President Bush was planning to spend.
Under Bush's plan, active duty personnel levels were supposed to go to 1,568,000, a reduction of 11 percent. President Clinton plans to go to 1.4 million active duty people. This is
11 percent less than the Bush plan.
Under President Bush's plan, the number of Army divisions, Navy ships and Air Force wings were to be slightly reduced.
President Clinton's military will look like this.
As you can see, President Clinton is planning to make only marginal reductions from the Bush plan.
What radical changes did you see? Smart bombs? That technology has been in development for years. Nobody said everything was scrapped and we started over. Don't put words in my mouth. Clinton was not responsible for anything you saw the military do in Iraq.
Nothing.
looks like such a dramatic difference. The reality is military spending has gone down since the end of the cold war, many of the base closings Clinton signed off on were agreed upon by a GOP controlled congess, everyone knew they had to trim the fat so to speak.
Both sides somehow during that time managed to make sure our forces were constantly the best in the world and that the technological progress man had made were incorporated into the military. Consider we had the GOP hunting Clinton for a BJ, it's amazing they got anything done.
Both sides somehow during that time managed to make sure our forces were constantly the best in the world and that the technological progress man had made were incorporated into the military. Consider we had the GOP hunting Clinton for a BJ, it's amazing they got anything done.
BS, look, you are in the service, I know many people who served under Clinton, nobody likes a boss that doesn't give out rasies for years and lays off his buddies.
I will gladly tell what radical changes I saw, the use of GPS guided equipment instwead of laser painting, a dangerous and time consuming older alternative Bush Sr. preffered. We saw the use of unmanned aircraft, not only obtaining information, but being used to carry out combat missions, killer drones. guess Bush just busted out his erector set and put those together for the Army though right?
There is not doubt our military is different than what we fielded in 1991, their equipment is obviously superior, look at the civilian causualty rate.
You don't have to personally give Clinton credit, but it will not changwe the fact most of those changes happened while he was in office. Why are you not blaming GOP senators for signing off on the base closings? it might make your opinion seem less biased...
I have stated many times on this board that I give full and equal credit for the status of the military to the Congress and the Pres. during the 90's. As far as the base clsings are concerned, BRAC is an all or nothing proposition and if I recall correctly does not require Congressional mandate. You might have also noticed that when I mentioned some of the screwed up things, I didn't mention base closings. They had little or nothing to do with what I am talking about.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Since as far back as I can remember the issue regarding military weaponry has been the maintenance factor. In '65 Navy, Marines, Air Force, and Army all had versions of the F4 Phantom... an all weather all purpose attack and fighter aircraft... Best aircraft at the time in the world. But, the down time on that aircraft was incredible... they flew with various unfixed gripes. They delayed manditory Maintenance intervals. Fortunatly the J79 engine was up to the task, but my point is that way back then there were multiservice aircraft intended to replace the F8 Crusader... but, many squadrens used F8's, A4's, the old Spad (a prop job) because there was not the bucks to provide the military with its needs... there never is. Heck ask anyone who ever used an AR 15... if it didn't jamb or if you had a full clip you were toast. But, that was the weapon used. (Mainly) I became a DOD procurement watcher after the '79 fiasco about 600$ toilet seats (first episode) then C-span and listened to the Generals and Admirals assure the Congress that what they proposed would meet the needs. They were under duress, I suppose, to come in at or under budget numbers. But, they never once (that I can remember) stated that they needed more or better otherwise they wouldn't field the troops... It is always "Can Do" a laudable motto but, if your in the field you might hear a bunch of "How do" and "Yes, sir".
With the changing technology to meet the needs of the troops you'd need a thrillion $ just to fund the R&D. It is this R&D that the "Cold War" victory was suppose to diminish but, today it goes full bore... We launch Carrier after Carrier and Sub after Sub and develop munitions to avail ouselves of the latest and greatest... this saves lives.. ours not theirs so the cost is worth it... but, there is only A guns or butter decision and the butter is fixed almost so all budget issues squish to the DOD and to the extent of debt service and taxing decisions which are economicaly driven the persuits of the US create the situation faced by the man in the field... Elect some folks who will either get the economy going or isolate more.
With the changing technology to meet the needs of the troops you'd need a thrillion $ just to fund the R&D. It is this R&D that the "Cold War" victory was suppose to diminish but, today it goes full bore... We launch Carrier after Carrier and Sub after Sub and develop munitions to avail ouselves of the latest and greatest... this saves lives.. ours not theirs so the cost is worth it... but, there is only A guns or butter decision and the butter is fixed almost so all budget issues squish to the DOD and to the extent of debt service and taxing decisions which are economicaly driven the persuits of the US create the situation faced by the man in the field... Elect some folks who will either get the economy going or isolate more.
Not if I can help it. Federalized, central-authority control over health care is not something I feel the nation can afford, nor do I want bureacrats deciding what health care we receive. They will mess it up grandly just as they have with most federal programs.
Negative.
Bush Sr. did not prefer "laser painting" and Clinton did not implement GPS. Laser painting and range finding was all that was technologically available within cost considerations at the time. GPS was available with limitations, and actually used with some air-delivered systems back in 1991. We had PLGRs back then; just no practical way to interface with fire control like we do now. Imbedded software was considered ancient at the time compared to nowadays. Therefore, alterations to flight paths on cruise missiles, for example, could not be programmed as rapidly as we can now. Today we utilize many types of systems - laser range-finding, laser "painting" and GPS for target acquisition and fire control, particularly with ground combat systems.
Use of GPS in conjunction with IT systems for ground navigation and situational awareness (namely: lowering incidental fratricide) has been ongoing actively since 1995. Conceptually, the program originated in 1991 by General Sullivan. I know because I was assigned to Force XXI.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter