Can you name this country?

[Salus]

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


GREAT BRITAIN ?
NO


FRANCE ?
WRONG AGAIN


MUST BE USA ?
STILL WRONG


GIVE UP ?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

These were the American military forces that were eliminated during the administration of Bill Clinton and Al Gore.


SLEEP WELL!

[Pilgrim]

Are you saying that we need all that back?

[Solly]

Today @ 03:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46919#post46919)
Salus:
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

These were the American military forces that were eliminated during the administration of Bill Clinton and Al Gore.


I believe it was called the Peace Dividend, following the end of the Cold War. The UK did the same. Other than Nukiller weapons, which was by treaty.
So our politicians should be fortune tellers?
Are you saying the US and Europe are about to be invaded by a superpower with comparable forces, which is why they were there?
Would so many troops be out of the country, if the US didn't think it had enough for national defense?

----
Smack me upside the head, I promised myself to stay out of the political forum. Too depressing. :argh:

[Ryokan]

Solly, we need you in the political forum. Your intellect makes you a refreshing opponent. :fight:

And Salus, we built all those weapons to beat the soviets. There are no more Soviets. We won. We don't need them anymore.

[Solly]

Today @ 03:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46939#post46939)
Ryokan:

Solly, we need you in the political forum. Your intellect makes you a refreshing opponent. :fight:



Thanks Ryo. :cheers: I just couldn't help wondering why I am usually on the same side as Eirann and Kiwimac. Beginning to feel like a punch bag.

[spl_cadet]

Must....kill....Clinton.
Not for the nukes, Air Force, and Army stuff, but for depleting our Navy so bad. The Navy is our front line, we need it to be as strong as possible.

[Epoetker]

Do I detect a little soon-to-be-Naval-recruit bias here?

[Vorkosigan]

These numbers, are, as usual, totally wrong. Take the number of carriers. It's been fixed since 1993 as a matter of DOD policy. Read the FAS site here. (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/where.htm). The information you've posted here is unsourced and, as the numbers for carriers shows, probably all wrong.

BTW, under Clinton were authorized the construction of two more carriers, CVN 76 and CVN 77.

Vorkosigan

[Patroclus]

That FAS site is pretty unclear. A better site (connected to FAS) is here (http://www.ne.jp/asahi/gonavy/atsugi/gonavy604.html). The FAS site is good for seeing where the ships were during Clinton's Presidency. The other site is good for knowing current locations and ships. I found it interesting that in the next three years, we will have The U.S.S. George H.W. Bush.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 10:06 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46919#post46919)
Salus:

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.
....
These were the American military forces that were eliminated during the administration of Bill Clinton and Al Gore. The same darned Adminstration that did something that neither Reagan or Bush (old or new) could ever do.
Have less spending than money they take in. IE, fiscal responsibilty!

(Jimmy Higgins sacrastically pondering how they did that.)

[wienerdog]

You sacrastic brastad!

[Rubia Warren]

LMBO:rofl:
you just don't know how funny that looks to read those words with a picture of that little dog next to it.

[HerodionRomulus]

"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death." Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., April 4, 1967

[Ryokan]

The a US carrier group, just one, could beat three out of four of the worlds navies. I think we have eight, maybe more. The navy is okay. We ought to trade in a carrier for better intelligence, if you ask me.

[Patroclus]

You sacrastic brastad!

Ponders the meaning of this phrase, and the word "brastad."

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Yesterday @ 11:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47572#post47572)
Ryokan:

The a US carrier group, just one, could beat three out of four of the worlds navies. I think we have eight, maybe more. The navy is okay. We ought to trade in a carrier for better intelligence, if you ask me.
I loved a bumper sticker I once saw: "Wouldn't it be nice if we could spend more money on Education, and the Air Force had to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber?"

[kiwimac]

Yesterday @ 09:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47652#post47652)
Patroclus:



Ponders the meaning of this phrase, and the word "brastad."

The word "Brastad" comes from the Old English "Brasthard" and means one who drinks the last slurp of milkshake in such a way that the entire population of a given area KNOWS they are finishing the aforesaid milkshake.

It is also possible that it comes from the Old High German "Braz Thurd" which means "a male who tap-dances in his wife's bra to the embarassement of his teenage children.

I hope this helps

Kiwimac

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 10:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47661#post47661)
Eireann:


I loved a bumper sticker I once saw: "Wouldn't it be nice if we could spend more money on Education, and the Air Force had to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber?"

So who's stopping you from spending more money on education? So far as the bake sale idea, I'm glad that the Federal Gummint occasionally uses taxes for the common defense, which is one of the things the US Gummint was actually designed to provide for.

Better bumpersticker by far: Support Whorled Peas
:wink:

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 02:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47450#post47450)
HerodionRomulus:

"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death." Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., April 4, 1967

I wonder if Dr. King was referring to the Federal budget, which will be heavy on defense spending (that being one of the things that our Federal goverment is supposed to take care of) and--until recently, anyway--lighter on educational spending.
In fact, it's probable that, taken together, spending for "programs of social uplift" is higher than military defense spending in the US on a long-running basis--except perhaps during wartime (where I think I could come up with a pithy saying to rival King's: "A country that spends more on education than on military defense while they are fighting for their continued existence is a country that is about to be conquered"--or something like that).
Now, maybe Dr. King had the USSR in mind. Their national spending may have been heavier on the military than on "programs of social uplift"--though they did spend a bunch on their sports programs--and the USSR was arguably approaching or at spiritual death.

[Ryokan]

I have seen that bumper sticker too. It brings to thoguhts though: One, would the amount of money schools spend on education keep them from wasting it any less, and two, what is the price of an aircraft carrier in brownies?

[GrayPilgrim]

Today @ 09:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47711#post47711)
Ryokan:

and two, what is the price of an aircraft carrier in brownies?

One Billion fat people?:huh:

[HerodionRomulus]

Capn Ochre replied: " "A country that spends more on education than on military defense while they are fighting for their continued existence is a country that is about to be conquered"--or something like that)."

Reminds me of an incident during WWII. PM Churchill was told that it was necessary to cut out music and arts from the schools to pay for the war. He replied by asking "What are we fighting for?" paraphrase

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 04:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47799#post47799)
HerodionRomulus:

Capn Ochre replied: " "A country that spends more on education than on military defense while they are fighting for their continued existence is a country that is about to be conquered"--or something like that)."

Reminds me of an incident during WWII. PM Churchill was told that it was necessary to cut out music and arts from the schools to pay for the war. He replied by asking "What are we fighting for?" paraphrase

In England, perhaps the national government is responsible for funding both defense and education.
In the US, education is generally funded by local governments while the national government handles defense funding.
Admittedly, the tendency toward federal government expansion has seen the federal education budget increase markedly, along with federal government control of national education.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 08:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47711#post47711)
Ryokan:

I have seen that bumper sticker too. It brings to thoguhts though: One, would the amount of money schools spend on education keep them from wasting it any less, and two, what is the price of an aircraft carrier in brownies?
Hmmm, could you be more specific? What kind of brownies are we talking about? I know one variety that, while somewhat illicit, might command a typically higher penny-per-cookie than the traditional sort. :tongue:

[Alden]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Alden]

I just thought that I drop a thought that I had about the education topic. Regarding education (separately from the military-or-education thing), my opinion is that the standards are the problem, not necessarily (or in addition to) the amount that we are spending on it.

My 2 cents

[quetzalphoenix]

03-29-2003 @ 11:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47661#post47661)
Eireann:


I loved a bumper sticker I once saw: "Wouldn't it be nice if we could spend more money on Education, and the Air Force had to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber?"

My response....Wouldn't it be nice if we could spend less of MY money on indoctrination? I'd rather give the government money to blow people up than to educate my children. At least they know how to do the former competently.

[flipper]

"Wouldn't it be nice if we could spend more money on Education, and the Air Force had to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber?"

I'm familiar with this sticker. Although I appreciate the sentiment it is trying to convey, it's the sort of woolly thinking that we often see from the left. I find it slightly irritating.

1) If defense was such a low priority in this world, why would we even need an airforce? Or a bomber? Would it be a "just in case" sort of a thing?

2) If we did need an airforce, such a peacemeal (typo intended) and cavalier approach to defense would ensure that we'd all be speaking Cuban, Chinese, Iranian, or probably even Tongan before too long. Our new overlords would keep all the cakes and other sweetmeats solely for their ruling elite, and our children would go uneducated and cakeless. The same people who carried such tiresome bumper stickers would either be silenced, become quislings, or would be quietly disappeared, presumably to be put to work in the cake mines where they would be able to savor the irony of their fates in a 2-minute-a-day break.

You're right though. Something badly needs to be done about the US education system.

[Bill the Cat]

WOOOOHOOOO. I agree wholeheartedly!! That's why I took my kids out of public school and enrolled them in a Christian school.

[adam.naranjo]

03-28-2003 @ 08:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47410#post47410)
Jimmy Higgins:

The same darned Adminstration that did something that neither Reagan or Bush (old or new) could ever do.
Have less spending than money they take in. IE, fiscal responsibilty!



You have no idea what your talking about.

First of All: The Government did not spend less then they took in during the administration to which you refer. The truth is they merely spend less then what they were spending before, but still more then what was being taken in. They took the projections into the future (which are always 90% innacurate) and showed that they would be spending less, which would save more in comparison to the projected deficites previously. So there was still overspending. It wasnt that the deficite was dicreasing, but that the projected difference was decreasing (the difference between spending more before and less later) -- also taking into account the HUGE tax increases he was putting into effect.

Anyway, EVERy country runs on deficites. Businesses always run on capital...You dont want to get into this issue with me.

Another thing
The republicans were the ones pushing for a balanced budget (which, as I said before, would ony be balanced in regards to projections etc,.). The republicans tried to pass multiple balanced budgets, that were, in fact, more balanced then what Clinton wanted. Clinton continued to threaten veto's until he got what HE wanted, which was a slightly less balanced budget. Where he could account from more balance by raising taxes, rather then cutting spending. And based on those tax increases and less spending project a future budget where deficites slowed down, but were still pilling up. However, He could just show the difference and the american people believed him.

Get used to it. The government allways "projects". and "accounts for", in order to feed you a line of crap that makes you think they're balancing something.

A balanced budget wont happen until we get more revenue, which wont happen until we get more Job's for more people to get paid for more checks to tax. More job's wont be created until we CUT taxes and lower interest rates in order to give big and small businesses the money they need to hire people, and give the workforce more money to guy goods from those businesses to make more money to pay more employees. None of this good stuff will happen while liberals are screwing stuff up in washington. Thats why you are witnessing a conservative take over.

buy.
Adam.Naranjo

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 12:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49103#post49103)
adam.naranjo:

None of this good stuff will happen while liberals are screwing stuff up in washington. Thats why you are witnessing a conservative take over.
Well, I can pretty much guarantee you one thing -- now that we have the conservatives screwing things up in Washington, you're not going to see any of that "good stuff" now either. It's that same ongoing vicious circle. The liberals come in and screw things up one way, and the conservatives point fingers and say, "See, you really didn't make anything better." Then they get in power and screw things up another way (or the same way, take your pick), and the liberals point fingers and say, "See, you really didn't make anything better, either." As long as you have the Rupublicans and Democrats toing opposite sides of the line (neither of them could give a crap less about the common folk) and refusing to work together, we're not going to see anything change.

[Ryokan]

I think that is very cynical and unfair, Eireann. Democrats and Republicans haven't screwed up everything they have done, and all of them aren't utterly indifferent to those nonexistent "commonfolk". Our system isn't perfect, but it more or less gets the job done.
And I do have to agree with Flippers assessment on the truth behind the bumper sticker. Soccer moms usually aren't to interested in reality vs. principal though. Still, having the airforce sell 1,000,000,000 brownies (or quite a few less of the ones Eireann makes) for the George H. Bush Aircraft carrier is amusing.

[flipper]

Ryokan:

Think of the headlines of tomorrow...

Peace Protest 'Flab In' Fails; "Too Much Walking" Cited

Airforce "Ready to Deploy" Million LB Brownie Bomb with Single Bomber

[Ryokan]

it would be (sniff) beautiful. :wink:

[Country Doc]

Dear Salus,
Saw your post about the deletion of our military might during the Clinton era. I agree with you. However there is explaination of "all" things in God's word. May I suggest reading from the book of Daniel, especialy chapters 2-7. You may want to reread ch.#2 several times. We are told in 2 Tim. 2:15 "Study to shew theyself approved unto God a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." God will show truth to all who search the scriptures. Dwight L. Moody used to say "Learn to feed yourself." So many people wish to recieve all their truth from some ecclesiastical spoon.

I would like to hear from you after you read these refferences and perhaps we can use them for a springboard to explor your original question further.

May The Light of The Holy Spirit guide you.

Respectfuly,
Country Doc

[Rahab]

Bonjour all,

The DOD Budget expenditures which have been discussed here , have been revolving around material and technology. When I was still a Navy dependent, I volunteered as a budget counselor for the Navy/Marine Corp Relief, a para military organization providing financial relief ( no interest loans and grants) to active duty members and their dependents in financial distress.

I cannot tell you the number of enlisted folks who simply could not make it on their net pay. I have viewed LES which in no way could support basic living expenses.

Added to that constant financial stress, the psychological and emotional impact on those families as they face long term separations from their active duty spouse while he/she is deployed on a sea billet or on an isolated tour overseas. Taking the kiddos out for a pizza dinner to help them overcome the good byes made to dad as his ship was pulling out for 7 months or more is not always a financial possibility.

There is an unbalance IMO between how much is spent for technological/material improvement and servicemembers' pay and "benefits".
So much is expected from them. Even "hazard pay" cannot compensate the potential loss of life leaving a widow/widower and orphans.

While on liberty during a ship visit in a foreign port, your E1 to E3 would pick up a sandwich or two at the "canteen" established by the ship thru the USO. A nutrition they in fact pay for as their food allowance is witheld from their pay while on deployment.( and that canteen system where the ship sends food ashore occured only with larger fleet units) Other units do not provide meals (if you can call cold cuts and bread, "meals") and the only way they would not lose out on their daily nutrition is if they organized their liberty time ashore around getting back on the ship to meet the mess hall schedule. And as the ship in anchored out, it means waste of time awaiting for the liberty barges and boats.

I watched for 4 years as I worked in those USO canteens on the French and Italian Rivieras some enlisted personel not even being able to benefit of that precious liberty time so indispensable to their moral. Little sailors hanging out at the USO all day because that was the only place they did not have to spend anything. Most of their pay going back home as a D allotment to support their families. Families who themselves struggled.

No matter how much money may be sunk into advanced technology, we cannot expect a quality Navy while allowing such low pay rates to continue.

The Navy by definition was not structured to undertake the endeavor to provide support services to the families. We would always joke about how the Air Force would include a bowling alley as they would draw plans for a new base overseas. We would also all know that accessing an Air Force or Army hospital overseas was a guarantee to better and more efficient medical care than our Navy facilities could provide. We already had faced the tragedy of loss of life caused by unsufficient and unprofessional health care. Having delt with episodes such as a misdiagnosed meningitis case leading to two more high school students dying on us. Or the 12 year old girl not picked up on time by the Navy ambulance resulting in her dying of a brain trauma. I unfortunatly have a longer list during our 6 year tour overseas.

There is a climate of discouragement in some of our navy folks because so much is expected from them yet so little is there as an incentive or reward to meet those expectations.

If any concern for the state of the US Navy, lobby actively with your Congressman to improve the quality of life of those servicemembers.

Remember that when a crisis strikes back in their homes because their dependent cannot make a car payment, they are going to be affected in their moral and it will impact their performance. Remember that for any of those guys and girls to have to depend on the 2 minute free call back to the States provided by some USO facilities overseas to be able to talk to mom, or dad or spouse and children on Christmas Day, you have to play YOUR part and support them and not look the other way the next time you can contribute to a USO fund raiser.

The people in uniform who serve in the United States Navy are the ones I am concerned about. I am equaly concerned for their dependents. We had a say that the " toughest job in the Navy is being a Navy spouse". I was there, I know. Even as a privileged officer's wife who could afford meeting my ex husband on some of his deployments, I knew that my welfare and our children's welfare were extremely important for him to focus efficiently on his duties.

When a "bubble head" is assigned to a Trident, he knows that as a Red Cross message may reach the deployed sub, indicating that his dependent is hospitalized, he has to place above any circumstances his sense of duty and not expect that the CO will compromise the location of the Trident to evacuate that one servicemember. He has to set aside his vows to his spouse and remain focused on his duties.

So much is expected from them.

Here is a measure I believe will improve the quality of life of both Navy personal and dependents stationned overseas :
Demilitarize the medical corp. Push for contracting civilian physicians and nurses to work onboard navy hospitals. I knew to make appointments with the civilian contracted nurse practionner for a pediatric consult.

We already have a vast civil service corp supporting the military. IMO they are far better fit to respond to the justified needs of those servicemembers and their dependents than some military personel is.

When a Navy servicemember or a dependent needs counseling, their destination is the office of a civilian counselor part of the primary civilian staff of the Family Services Centers. There is no rank sitting on the arm sleeves or shoulders of that counselor. Which enlisted member will feel comfortable "spilling his guts" to an O4? Even the most compassionate and devoted CPO or Senior Chief or CWO will eventualy refer the distressed fellow enlisted to the counselor. FSC's function is vital to promoting a better moral.
And we need to support more civilian involvement and interaction with the military. Especialy the Navy and Marine Corp.

Focus on the people who serve not so much on the super carrier.

[HerodionRomulus]

Another thing
The republicans were the ones pushing for a balanced budget (which, as I said before, would ony be balanced in regards to projections etc,.). The republicans tried to pass multiple balanced budgets, that were, in fact, more balanced then what Clinton wanted. Clinton continued to threaten veto's until he got what HE wanted, which was a slightly less balanced budget. Where he could account from more balance by raising taxes, rather then cutting spending. And based on those tax increases and less spending project a future budget where deficites slowed down, but were still pilling up. However, He could just show the difference and the american people believed him.

Adam.Naranjo

Then George II is no republican as he has racked up enormous deficits, over a TRILLION dollars so far, almost half of that just in this fiscal year.
Your grandchildren will still be paying for this immoral irresponsibility.

Bush/Cheney '04: Four More Wars!

[geochron]

Must....kill....Clinton.
Not for the nukes, Air Force, and Army stuff, but for depleting our Navy so bad. The Navy is our front line, we need it to be as strong as possible.

1. It's not a lot of use against terrorists.
2. Given the US budget deficit, it probably is as strong as possible.

[Losvedir]

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


GREAT BRITAIN ?
NO


FRANCE ?
WRONG AGAIN


MUST BE USA ?
STILL WRONG


GIVE UP ?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

These were the American military forces that were eliminated during the administration of Bill Clinton and Al Gore.


SLEEP WELL!

How many of those in these different categories were actually eliminated under Bush and his foolhardy war?