So let me guess . . . if you round 1.82+0.988 up to 3.0 and round 1.17+0.745 down to 1.5
. . . I guess that's half . . . no wonder the GOP cannot balance a budget. The important question to be answered isn't how much or how many but how well are we using our military resources? Bush has shown little which approximates a judicious use of a limited resource. Clinton was no mastermind and if NK hadn't backed down from their previous nuke program (only to start a clandestine one) maybe the US active/reserve military would be much larger to reflect the climate. In the current climate, the only reason we need a larger military is b/c no country on Earth shares our militaristic viewpoint and has troops to spare. The citizens of the UK, Spain, and Australia overwelmingly disagree with US policy despite their center-left, center-right, and center-right PMs, respectively. If we had REAL leadership in the Oval Office we could do much more with less troops and less money b/c the world would follow. Until such leadership arrives . . . we will continue to waste lives and money on the hubris and idiocy of the strong-willed and weak-minded members of the Executive and Legislative branches.
its based on population of the country also, i mean there are many more whites, so the miltary has many more, and there for you have a greater chance of killing a white person, instead of a black, or asian, or hispanic
Dogg
some prob already said that, but i didn;t feel like reading all the posts
Dogg
some prob already said that, but i didn;t feel like reading all the posts
- Aug 10, 2001
- 10,424
- 2
- 0
For the same reason people make race an issue. If you are going to step into this pile of shit known as race-baiting might as well step in all the way and include class-warfare. Hell might as well through in religion and sex. How many were Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhist, etc...and how many of those killed were men as compared to women etc..
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
So let me guess . . . if you round 1.82+0.988 up to 3.0 and round 1.17+0.745 down to 1.5
First off it is about 1/2 and I said about 1/2 because I did not have the numbers in front of me. Next time I will make sure to post an answer that would satisify any six sigma guru.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,414
- 8,356
- 126
Originally posted by: BOBDN
And I just wanted to represent that the poster above was misconstruing the facts when suggesting the "white" "race" was doing more than their part when in fact as a percentage they are under represented in being killed by Bush's policies in Iraq.
But I forgot that some of the people who post in this forum are hateful reactionaries.
no one above did that expect for one facetious comment: "You gotta admire us crackers. We're dumb enough to keep on rushing in where others fear to tread."
seems like you're jumping at shadows
KK
Lifer
- Jan 2, 2001
- 15,903
- 4
- 81
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: BOBDN
And I just wanted to represent that the poster above was misconstruing the facts when suggesting the "white" "race" was doing more than their part when in fact as a percentage they are under represented in being killed by Bush's policies in Iraq.
But I forgot that some of the people who post in this forum are hateful reactionaries.
no one above did that expect for one facetious comment: "You gotta admire us crackers. We're dumb enough to keep on rushing in where others fear to tread."
seems like you're jumping at shadows
Yeah really, happy puppy was just kidding around. BOBDN, you can tell that by the next line happypuppy typed, let me help you since you seemed to get bent out of shape, he started the next line with "seriously" Whats that mean to you? What it means to the everyone besides you, is the first line is an attempt at a joke. Evidently, some(BOBDN) didn't catch on.
KK
Dude . . . it's your commentary . . . feel free to repeat what someone else says and then get defensive when it's clear your facts an inakurit (Bush speak).
1) If you lop off the least significant digit you get 1.9/2.9 which is 66% or 2/3 for all military personnel active + reserve.
2) If you just do active you get 64% . . . hmmm . . . that's real close to 50%.
3) If you just do reserves you get a whopping 75% . . . or 3/4.
I'm easy to please . . . all you have to be is correct or at least in the vicinity. It is safe to say Bush 41 (plus Cheney) instituted a policy of reducing military funding and force levels to reflect the environment. Despite his less than cozy relationship with the military, Clinton didn't necessarily "whack away" at DOD. For the most part, Clinton continued the activities of his predecessors with the notable exception of involving the US in multiple deployments while decreasing funding and force levels.
Candidates Bush/Cheney decried the horrible state of the US military; it was run down and over extended. Once they were in power they extolled its unchallenged supremacy and began campaigning for a massive influx of money . . . not for troops or increased pay (although troops did get a raise) . . . but for Star Wars Episode II: Return of Unrealistic and Wasteful Spending. Since 9/11 we've now invaded two countries with plans for world domination (PNAC) but troop levels have not significantly increased and we've deployed even more troops than Clinton. If Clinton policies were reckless what do you call Bush . . . prudent?! Just last week Rumsfeld claimed there was no need for a larger US military. Well if that's the case I guess Clinton cutbacks were appropriate . . . at least to some degree.
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Dude . . . it's your commentary . . . feel free to repeat what someone else says and then get defensive when it's clear your facts an inakurit (Bush speak).
1) If you lop off the least significant digit you get 1.9/2.9 which is 66% or 2/3 for all military personnel active + reserve.
2) If you just do active you get 64% . . . hmmm . . . that's real close to 50%.
3) If you just do reserves you get a whopping 75% . . . or 3/4.
I am not defensive about the numbers at all. The military is much smaller than it was 10 years ago. I only made the this point to put military accidents into perspective. After the cold war the size of military needed tp be reduced. And today it is close to 50% of its peak size. That link also is 5 years old, so it probably safe to assume that the 64% is high as well since the numbers continue to trend downward.
I apologize if my characterization of your posture was inaccurate. But you must admit it's quite foolish to try and defend the "half" statement. Why don't we just forget "half" and say Bush 41 (primarily his DOD Chief Cheney) began reducing military budgets and force levels and that Clinton continued the reductions despite his rather liberal use of US forces during his term. Bush 43 curiously has significantly expanded the use of the US military but has not invested a prudent amount of money in manpower/recruitment to cover it . . . but they are definitely wasting loads of cash on other concerns.
NOTE: In 1998, everybody and their uncle was trying to get into comp sci or some other tech related field. Therefore, the alleged "training/education" provided by the US military but poorly compensated . . . meant many young people had multiple incentives to take their skills to the private sector. A best case scenario for your numbers would be that 20% of military personnel left the armed forces beetween 1998 and 2000. At which point, the Clinton nadir (1 million active duty) would be 55% of Reagan's peak. I would accept that as half . . . certainly close enough for government work.
One of my brothers was a Pershing Missile crewman in the late 80s - early 90s and another was a Marine. They both left after 8 years or so . . . which means Clinton's policies produced a 100% reduction in my families military commitment compared to Reagan.
NOTE: In 1998, everybody and their uncle was trying to get into comp sci or some other tech related field. Therefore, the alleged "training/education" provided by the US military but poorly compensated . . . meant many young people had multiple incentives to take their skills to the private sector. A best case scenario for your numbers would be that 20% of military personnel left the armed forces beetween 1998 and 2000. At which point, the Clinton nadir (1 million active duty) would be 55% of Reagan's peak. I would accept that as half . . . certainly close enough for government work.
One of my brothers was a Pershing Missile crewman in the late 80s - early 90s and another was a Marine. They both left after 8 years or so . . . which means Clinton's policies produced a 100% reduction in my families military commitment compared to Reagan.
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
One of my brothers was a Pershing Missile crewman in the late 80s - early 90s and another was a Marine. They both left after 8 years or so . . . which means Clinton's policies produced a 100% reduction in my families military commitment compared to Reagan.
Spurious correlation aside, I like the fact you understand the ways in which many use statistics to further their arguments, regardless if they arrive at flawed conclusions or not...nice analogy, though
Anytime I see statistics, I immediately look for the methodologies used to derive the numbers. Good eye, sir. 
Yahoo
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration may have to cut U.S. troops in Iraq (news - web sites) by more than half to keep enough forces to face other threats, a congressional agency said on Tuesday in a report that fueled calls for more international help for peacekeeping in Iraq.
The CBO said it would cost up to $19 billion and take three to five years to recruit, train and equip two more divisions with about 80,000 in troops and support personnel.
Keeping the 20,000 in additional forces and support personnel the divisions would provide in Iraq would cost about $10 billion annually, boosting occupation costs to some $29 billion a year, it said.
A U.S. occupying force of less than 64,000 would cost between $8 billion and $10 billion a year, the CBO said, while a force of up to 106,000 adding Marines and other ground forces would cost $14 billion to $19 billion.
The CBO also offered alternative scenarios if the Pentagon made more use of National Guard, reserves, Marines and civilian personnel in Iraq.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration may have to cut U.S. troops in Iraq (news - web sites) by more than half to keep enough forces to face other threats, a congressional agency said on Tuesday in a report that fueled calls for more international help for peacekeeping in Iraq.
The CBO said it would cost up to $19 billion and take three to five years to recruit, train and equip two more divisions with about 80,000 in troops and support personnel.
Keeping the 20,000 in additional forces and support personnel the divisions would provide in Iraq would cost about $10 billion annually, boosting occupation costs to some $29 billion a year, it said.
A U.S. occupying force of less than 64,000 would cost between $8 billion and $10 billion a year, the CBO said, while a force of up to 106,000 adding Marines and other ground forces would cost $14 billion to $19 billion.
The CBO also offered alternative scenarios if the Pentagon made more use of National Guard, reserves, Marines and civilian personnel in Iraq.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter