Post your thoughts.
Ahem.. Err...
Like what DeadTired said in chat, he would be hiding under his desk...
[ 09-21-2001: Message edited by: Modrakien ]
Any video game or movie with a PG-13 rating or higher would be banned.
Guns would be banned and the defense budget cut to virtually nothing.
Anyone seeking a hostile counterattack would be deemed inhuman. Our response would consist of forign aid.
The next terrorist strike turns out to be of the nuclear nature. DC is a crater, and Bin Laden's dream of de-unifying the United States comes true.
Then the invasion comes, not just from the mid-east but probably from china as well who jumped in the boat when it looked like Afghanistan was going to win. Since firearms are banned and the military is gone, we can put up little resistance. [ 09-21-2001: Message edited by: Maradon? ]
quote:
Originally posted by Maradon?:
Gore would be the president elect, but Tipper would be the president.Any video game or movie with a PG-13 rating or higher would be banned.
Guns would be banned.
Anyone seeking a hostile counterattack would be deemed inhuman. Our response would consist of forign aid.
The next terrorist strike turns out to be of the nuclear nature. DC is a crater, and Bin Laden's dream of de-unifying the United States comes true.
Sounds like the truth to me.
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
quote:
Originally posted by PhootingAPhotonOfGas:
Al Gore would be blabbering about how evil cars are, and we'd be walking everywhere now.
I thought he invented cars?
BTW, welcome n00b 
What a coinky-dink!
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Originally posted by Drysart:
Gee, I don't know, maybe he'd just listen to what his military advisors have to say about the situation like Bush does?
Democrat's idea of a military advisor: A magic 8 ball.
Q: Should I cut off flight training allowances so our pilots don't have the training they need and raise the number of flight related deaths?
A: Yes Mr. Clinton, go for it!
Q: Should I cut the military to a shell of its former self just like every Democrat in office before me (except JFK) just so we can spend MORE money rebuilding the military later when we need it?
A: Wow, you got the pattern down Mr. President.
quote:
Originally posted by Kanid:
Q: Should I cut the military to a shell of its former self just like every Democrat in office before me (except JFK) just so we can spend MORE money rebuilding the military later when we need it?A: Wow, you got the pattern down Mr. President.
Oh yes, those three Democratic presidents since JFK (Johnson, Carter, and Clinton), all of whom were in office during peacetime, while the Republicans over the same era (Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush Sr.) all had wars to wage (Vietnam, the Cold War, and the Gulf War), is a such a stunning and completely unbiased example of differences in policy. You don't think those wars had anything to do with it, do you? You don't suppose that's why JFK beefed up the military too, do you? Naw, we'd never let a thing like reality get in the way of our politics.
We were at war, and beefed up the military. We go into peace and the democrat in office guts the military. We go back into war and it costs MORE to rebuild the military than it would have if we had maintained it at the current level.
This same pattern has repeated. You'd think they would LEARN from history to leave the military the hell alone, because as soon as they gut it, we are going to need it again.
Silly me, thinking the facts of repeated history are more concrete than some idiot's (not you, the ones in office gutting the military each time) theories of what is better for the country.
Not even taking into account the fact that a strong military also helps maintain a strong economy, with both military personel working instead of in the unemployment line, as well as contractors making things for the military. [ 09-21-2001: Message edited by: Kanid ]
quote:
Originally posted by Kanid:
Um, that was the WHOLE point Drysart.We were at war, and beefed up the military. We go into peace and the democrat in office guts the military. We go back into war and it costs MORE to rebuild the military than it would have if we had maintained it at the current level.
This same pattern has repeated. You'd think they would LEARN from history to leave the military the hell alone, because as soon as they gut it, we are going to need it again.
Silly me, thinking the facts of repeated history are more concrete than some idiot's (not you, the ones in office gutting the military each time) theories of what is better for the country.
Not even taking into account the fact that a strong military also helps maintain a strong economy, with both military personel working instead of in the unemployment line, as well as contractors making things for the military.
Yeah! Someone else who supports the military!
*high fives Kanid*
quote:
Originally posted by Kanid:
Um, that was the WHOLE point Drysart.We were at war, and beefed up the military. We go into peace and the democrat in office guts the military. We go back into war and it costs MORE to rebuild the military than it would have if we had maintained it at the current level.
Please quote your sources. I find it hard, if not impossible, to believe that keeping the war machine running is less costly than only firing it up when necessary.
Submitted for your approval, the results of the so-called inexpensive running military:
1985 was the "high water" mark of the Reagan era military buildup. Military spending has decreased as a rule since then. (Yes, this includes all 4 years of the Bush Sr. administration .. FY'88 saw $372.8B allocated to the military, FY'91 saw only $316.5B allocated .. both values given in 1996 Dollars).
Additionally, although spending decreased overall, the U.S. share of the global military budget increased from 31% to 36%.
At $343 billion, the U.S. military budget for Fiscal Year 2002 is more than six times larger than that of Russia, the second largest spender. It is more than twenty-three times as large as the combined spending of the seven countries traditionally pointed to as our most likely adversaries (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria). It's more than the combined spending of the next 15 nations. Our military is not small by any stretch of the imagination.
Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, Syria, Russia, and China combined only spend $116 billion on their military... which is only 34% of the U.S. military budget.
In 1979, the national debt was $829 billion. In 1992, it was over $4 trillion. This does not show that maintaining a large military is an affordable expense over the long term. There are no substantial spikes in military spending associated with the regrowth of the military to account for wartime since 1952 (see chart).
So, again... tell me how it's cheaper to keep the military running at full force when it's not actively being used?
Training costs did spike, which caused a forced decrease in flight time and deployments.
Yes, I know Bush Sr. started the military cut backs after the gulf war. Bush Sr. also increased taxes. He wasn't much of a republican in my book.
Also, did you know that the US Marines get 10 times less money per person than the other services? Yet the Marines do more work.
quote:
Originally posted by Kanid:
Training costs did spike, which caused a forced decrease in flight time and deployments.
How does this add up?
Training costs spike when the military grows (i.e., NOT the Clinton era, according to you), but you claimed that the decrease in flight time and deployments due to rising training costs occured during the Clinton era. Seems like you're blaming him for both sides of the same coin. Do you want a large military or a cheap military?
quote:
Originally posted by Kanid:
Yes, I know Bush Sr. started the military cut backs after the gulf war. Bush Sr. also increased taxes. He wasn't much of a republican in my book.
Kennedy (D) spending INCREASED from FY'61 (291.1B) to FY'63 (293.3B)
Johnson (D) spending INCREASED from FY'64 (294.8B) to FY'69 (371.8B)
Nixon (R) spending decreased from FY'70 (346.0B) to FY'74 (243.7B)
Ford (R) spending decreased from FY'75 (242.0B) to FY'77 (232.7B)
Carter (D) spending INCREASED from FY'78 (233.2B) to FY'81 (260.8B)
Reagan (R) spending INCREASED from FY'82 (282.0B) to FY'89 (376.2B)
Bush Sr. (R) spending decreased from FY'90 (358.7B) to FY'93 (312.1B)
Clinton (D) spending INCREASED from FY'94 (290.3B) to FY'01 (310.6B).
(See the above linked chart for all numbers except FY'01, which comes from here.)
Seems that other than Reagan, military spending WENT UP during Democrat administrations. Contrary to what you stated.
quote:
Originally posted by Kanid:
Also, did you know that the US Marines get 10 times less money per person than the other services? Yet the Marines do more work.
The Air Force has planes to buy. The Army has tanks. The Navy has ships. What do the Marines have to buy? Not trying to be inciteful, I'm just wondering what this has to do with the rest of the discussion. [ 09-21-2001: Message edited by: Drysart ]
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
quote:
Originally posted by Drysart:
The Air Force has planes to buy. The Army has tanks. The Navy has ships. What do the Marines have to buy? Not trying to be inciteful, I'm just wondering what this has to do with the rest of the discussion.
Marines have planes also. Marines have tanks also.
During rebuilding of the military, training costs went up, as is typical in training with any business, costs more to hire and train people than to keep the ones you have, especially considering they are of no use for the 13 weeks they are in training.
One of the major areas Clinton cut was flight time. Not saying it was him who specifically said "Cut flight times" but the end result is, that is a specific part of his additional cuts over Bush Sr's cuts.
Lucky me, being in radar, I get to talk to pilots all the time and all they did was complain about the cut in flight hours. Not getting enough training. Without proper flight training, we have shitty pilots. During training, there are deaths, part of the job. During the Clinton years there were more than the average number of deaths during training.
This isn't necessarily the root cause, but it was surely a important factor, there are other factors that come into play also. The fact that trainees in boot camp get it easier and easier every year. Can't even yell at them anymore! How do you prepare someone for war without being able to see how they handle stress?
quote:
Originally posted by Kanid:
One of the major areas Clinton cut was flight time. Not saying it was him who specifically said "Cut flight times" but the end result is, that is a specific part of his additional cuts over Bush Sr's cuts.
quote:
Originally posted by Drysart:
Clinton (D) spending INCREASED from FY'94 (290.3B) to FY'01 (310.6B).
I think you're blaming the wrong person. Clinton gave them MORE money. Point the finger at the Pentagon for shifting the money around differently.
