Can You Name This Country?

[Strelnikov]

Let’s look at some troop strength numbers – maybe that will give us a hint.

*709,000 Regular (active duty) military personnel.
*293,000 Reserves.
*8 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.
*4 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
The United Kingdom? NO
France? WRONG AGAIN
Must be the USA? STILL WRONG

GIVE UP?

These are the American military forces that were eliminated during the administration of Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Look for more of the same if Senator Kerry gets elected president this fall.

SLEEP WELL!


Strelnikov

[venray]

Originally posted by Strelnikov
Let’s look at some troop strength numbers – maybe that will give us a hint.



SLEEP WELL!


Strelnikov

I shall....I am voting for Bush......

:D

[red indian]

.........use it to stop British beef imports, attack themselves and set up the 258th "republic" or use it to guard cheese factories?

[qjakal]

We really need to get the TMF forces up to snuff. How are we ever going to enforce the Tickling Act of 2007 if we can't back it up? Can't count on the U.N. for something that important...we need to handle it ourselves.

Q

[MrMacphisto]

Exactly, vote for Bush... After all, bringing us further into debt by spending more and more on the military while still creating huge budget deficits from tax cuts that primarily go to the rich is a brilliant idea. I mean, c'mon, who needs social programs and environmental cleanliness? We all know that terrorism and banning gay marriage are far greater issues than any nagging concerns about the administration's involvements in corporate scandals or in lying about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

[TKpervert]

Bush gets MY vote.

[TKpervert]

Originally posted by qjakal
We really need to get the TMF forces up to snuff. How are we ever going to enforce the Tickling Act of 2007 if we can't back it up? Can't count on the U.N. for something that important...we need to handle it ourselves.

Q

Give us TMF'ers an $800 billion budget, and we'll find a way to handle it. http://www.anchoredbygrace.com/smileys/biglaugha.gif

[ShadowTklr]

Originally posted by Strelnikov
These are the American military forces that were eliminated during the administration of Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Look for more of the same if Senator Kerry gets elected president this fall.

SLEEP WELL!


Strelnikov


Under the Bush administration's educational system, we now produce nearly the least intelligent students on the planet, and its going to get much worse as standardized testing moves to 3rd graders and Bush's No White Child of Well-To-Do Families Left Behind Act moves forward. Under the Bush Administration, American citizens continue to be victimized by corporate and governmental corruption at the highest level that our executive government has fostered, nurtured, and supported (And still supports...[see Halliburton]).

Our unofficially and unduly elected President is a bonafide, unparalleled liar (with runners up going to Ronald "Oliver North who?" Reagan, and Richard "What tapes?" Nixon.) These were other Republican Presidents who sought to usurp the constitution of the United States in favor of their own megalomaniacal egos.

Oh, and our military Industrial Complex (I can hear the rattling of Eisenhower's bones as I type this), regardless of administration, is always looking the other way when TRUE uncompromising humanitarian action is needed - think South Africa, Rhuanda, Mogadishu, Haiti, Iran, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Nicaragua, Philippines, and now Iraq, to name a few in no particular order.

So, when you say “These are the American military forces that were eliminated during the administration of Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Look for more of the same if Senator Kerry gets elected president this fall.” I have to wonder, what exactly is your point?

[venray]

"So, when you say “These are the American military forces that were eliminated during the administration of Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Look for more of the same if Senator Kerry gets elected president this fall.” I have to wonder, what exactly is your point?

The point is that the elimination of such forces showed a complacency that allowed those that hate us to plan out the attack of 911 and train the terrorist forces to do it in Afghanistan....When we show signs of weakness the crazies of the world take action.

And this is only the tip of the iceberg if Kerry gets elected, he cant even decide which side of an issue he is on from year to year.


Ven

[Synful Pryde]

Originally posted by venray1
... he cant even decide which side of an issue he is on from year to year.

LOL ... thanks ven :)

~Syn

[venray]

Don't thank me...his record speaks for itself......;)

[Shem the Penman]

Originally posted by venray1
Don't thank me...his record speaks for itself......;)

Meanwhile, George W. Bush is, of course, a model of consistency and rigor. First he wants Osama dead or alive, then he doesn't care about Osama. First he opposes the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, then he supports it. First he's for free trade, then he imposes steel tariffs, then he's for free trade again. First he announces we found WMD, then he announces we haven't found them yet. First he opposes the creation of the 9/11 independent commision, then he supports it. First he says Saddam and al-Qaeda are linked, then he says they're not. First he says gay marriage is a state issue, then he calls for a constitutional amendment. And then there's the ever-changing justification for the Iraq war.

I wish I could enjoy the upcoming spectacle of George W. Bush's presidency self-destructing over the summer, but I can't because it's my country he's fucking up. I hope our foreign guests enjoy the show, though.

[TKpervert]

politics. feh.

[venray]

Exactly...politics...Both parties are equal in their ineptitude at times, but I choose a strong stand against those that would have us all dead over those who would do little or nothing to offer a show of strength....;)

As for the destruction of a presidency...take a look at what came before...Clinton impeached..George Senior 1 term only.. Nixon crooked.... Carter...bad President though a good statesman......
Go back as far as you would like and examine either party and you will see little difference in the men themselves.


I think that the majority of Americans will give GW another term of office to prove what he can do....If not, I fear our enemies will rejoice......and more devastating attacks will occur here at home.

[TKpervert]

Right on Venray1.

I hold firm to my belief that a principled man (or woman) cannot rise high enough in politics to ever be seen on a ballot because principled people can't be bought and sold.

Politicians won't utter a single word without seeing the latest 'poll', which determines their opinion-de-jour.

Politicians and their handlers don't even consider the 'truth' when issuing press releases, they only consider what will appeal to the lowest common denominator that has enough smarts to find its way to a ballot box.

So... when you hang your chad on that shining candidate, you're voting for an unprincipled, lying parrot.

My neighbor Louie the Plumber would make a better president than either Bush or Kerry.

Louie is a principled guy and ain't on the ballot.

politics. feh.

[ticklebutton]

Originally posted by TKpervert
My neighbor Louie the Plumber would make a better president than either Bush or Kerry.
Louie is a principled guy and ain't on the ballot.
You could vote for Louie with a write-in vote.

In fact, I urge everyone considering voting for Bush to

VOTE FOR LOUIE THE PLUMBER

Button :p

[TKpervert]

Thanks Button, that's two votes for Louie.

Only 70 million votes to go, but it's progress.

OY.

[ShadowTklr]

d

[Ticklebell]

I'm not big on politics. I'm just gonna say : Kerry's not Clinton. And THANK GOD, Kerry's not Bush. Being a democrat doesn't mean you're going to clone someone else's mistakes (if those are, in fact... factual.). It just means you're a democrat. I'd rather have Kerry over a dumb-butt war-monger. Or however you spell it. Pay no mind... I am but a small voice. Ththththbbbpppt!! :p Mwah!

-Bell :cool2:

[ShadowTklr]

Originally posted by Ticklebell
I'm not big on politics. I'm just gonna say : Kerry's not Clinton. And THANK GOD, Kerry's not Bush. Being a democrat doesn't mean you're going to clone someone else's mistakes (if those are, in fact... factual.). It just means you're a democrat. I'd rather have Kerry over a dumb-butt war-monger. Or however you spell it. Pay no mind... I am but a small voice. Ththththbbbpppt!! :p Mwah!

-Bell :cool2:

The good news is that you don't have to be a large voice. You just have to be a voice of reason and sanity among millions of other like-voices to make a difference.

During peace-time, with no forseeable threat against our National Security, it is not only fiscally responsible, but prudent to downsize a war-time military in favor of reallocation of funds to more pressing domestic issues. That's what made the original post so deceptive. It attempted to use peace-time military restructuring as a bludgeoning tool against the Cinton administration, and Kerry for what happened on 9/11. Its the same, lame republican rhetoric that has this country in a constant state of fear right now.

[venray]

Shadow..the fact that you need to resort to name calling and insults to make your point merely reinforces mine. I wouldnt vote for anyone who has your endorsement any more than I would vote for anyone who has
Ted Kennedy's.

You are right my graamar was skewed a bit. I will clarify. I choose the present administration (which takes strong action against those that would have us all dead) over those that would sit back and do nothing. (Kerry and friends)

Politics will always be the same. Vote for the lesser of two evils and live with the decision you make, (or die with it)

LOL

Be well.
:cool:

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by venray1
"So, when you say “These are the American military forces that were eliminated during the administration of Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Look for more of the same if Senator Kerry gets elected president this fall.” I have to wonder, what exactly is your point?

The point is that the elimination of such forces showed a complacency that allowed those that hate us to plan out the attack of 911 and train the terrorist forces to do it in Afghanistan....When we show signs of weakness the crazies of the world take action.
Ven

Guess what Ven? Bush dropped the ball on 9/11, not Clinton. Clinton had been readying things for Bush to protect us against terrorists, and the only "complacency that allowed those that hate us to plan out the attack of 911 and train the terrorist forces to do it in Afghanistan" occurred due to Bush not making national security a main priority until AFTER 9/11 happened. By the way, administrations far earlier than Clinton's were responsible for the rise of Saddam and Osama. We funded both of them against the Soviets, and Bush #1 & Reagan can be linked to the funding of Saddam specifically.

The amount of military forces we have has little to do with the ability of our intelligence agencies. The NSA, CIA, and FBI are completely separate entities from the military, so assuming that the amount of planes, soldiers, tanks, etc. we have has anything to do with this kind of national security issue is just fucking ignorant. The military is useful against an official, national enemy, NOT individuals or terrorist cells. In short, you can bitch all you want about Clinton decreasing the size of our military, but he made the proper preparations for addressing terrorism in this country by working with the CIA and FBI. Bush could've done the same if it weren't for his own "complacency."

[venray]

Clinton did not finish what he started with the training camps as he was too preoccupied with getting blow jobs from interns and trying to cover it up. Talk about letting personal "affairs" get in the way of national security. As soon as the press yelled "wag the dog" he backed down from what could have been the one action that would have prevented the tragedy.

I am not saying that the Bush administration couldnt have done more. I am saying that the Clinton administration could have done more first and chose not to. To me that is far worse.

:rolleyes:

[MrMacphisto]

Perhaps the one thing we agree on is that lying when that much evidence about your marital infidelity is in your face is a bad thing. However, only the Republican party would stoop low enough to dig into an opponent's personal life as much as was done to Clinton. They couldn't find much dirt on him in other areas of his life, and his foreign policy and economic decisions were far better than the ones that Bush has made. Only someone who believes most of what they see on TV would actually think that Clinton was getting enough blowjobs to prevent him from doing his job. However, taking a vacation almost every other month would do that kind of thing, wouldn't it? (looks at Bush)

Wagging the dog is what the media was doing, because we all know how they like to overexpose things. Nowadays, the television media are usually conservatively biased, but they make targets out of both parties. You can blame Clinton all you want about 9/11, but it still happened under Bush's watch. Don't you think blaming a tragedy on a president who had been out of office for nearly a year is rather ludicrous?

[venray]

I do not blame him. I blame the FBI, CIA and both administrations for not paying close enough attention and sharing necessary info with those that could have acted to prevent this.

I sincerely believe that the present administration will never let this happen again, whereas someone like Kerry would not have a clue. I'd much rather have seen Edwards get the nomination.



ven

[qjakal]

This isn't one...merely a series of opinions stated in mostly nasty terms. No one is listening to the other viewpoint, and at times there is language that is dismissive and condescending.

I'd say it's getting repetitive and walking the GRV line. Being civil to each other is an integral part of this forum...get back to it.

Q

[ShadowTklr]

Originally posted by qjakal
This isn't one...merely a series of opinions stated in mostly nasty terms. No one is listening to the other viewpoint, and at times there is language that is dismissive and condescending.

I'd say it's getting repetitive and walking the GRV line. Being civil to each other is an integral part of this forum...get back to it.

Q

Well, I don't know about all that, but I'm sure its my fault. Nothing accomplished here anyway. Have a nice day. :cool:

[dreamboy]

1. The 98% of the least-rich people in America
2. The U.S. environment (mining, drilling, pollution, etc.)
3. Health care for the unemployed
4. Health and prescription assistance for the elderly
5. Number of jobs yet in America (*fingers crossed*)
6. Assistance for Education needs (N.C.L.B.=:jester: )
7. True respect and cooperation from other nations (who used to be allies)

Has George Bush REALLY made these issues so much better in his term?? He has already had nearly 4 years to prove what he can do (or rather, what the two men pulling his strings have done, in his name). Just consider the vast improvements he has made! Honestly, I simply don't see it at all. He has sorely neglected issues in his own country, to go on a tirade about a country that, at the time, was fairly insignificant.
John Kerry may not be the best alternative in the U.S., but he deserves an opportunity, and certainly couldn't do any worse. At least HE would be making most of the policy decisions, and not the rich friends who have been rewarded as 'Advisors'.

[Strelnikov]

Like it or not, we're at war with Islamist terrorism. They've been at war with us since the Yom Kippur War in 1973. They told us so. We just weren't paying attention until 911.

Right now, we're fighting that war with a peacetime military. Spending on the military and Homeland Defense is about 4% of gross domestic product - it supports a military (Active and Reserve) of about 1.25 million. That's down from the Cold War peaks of almost 7% in the mid-1980's and 2.5 million during the Viet Nam War. I don't recall that anyone starved because of it. We could do it again - it's simply a question of resolve.

What has the military to do with terrorism? Consider this: Since 911, we've destroyed two enemy regimes. One of the aftershocks is that Iran, Syria and Libya are behaving a lot more reasonably, and even the North Koreans aren't rattling the saber as much as usual. Islamic governments are cooperating and cracking down on the Islamists. That's not a bad return for casualties of less than 25% of our 911 dead.

Someone is sure to tell me that we can't be the world's policeman. If not us, who will? Who else has the resources? This is by far the world's biggest economy, and we've barely scratched the surface.

About 15 million American men, and about 1 million women, served in World War II. That's out of a total population of 150 million, half of our current population. In 1944, when the nation was fully mobilized, we were spending 40% of GDP on the military. No one starved then either. We never even had rationing like others did - why should we, we were feeding the whole Western Alliance. Our rationing was mainly an exercise in bringing the War to the Home Front.

I'm not suggesting an effort of that magnitude now. But we could if we had to, or if we're provoked. As I said, it's a question of resolve.

Strelnikov

[zyclos_b]

We've invaded and occupied countries for the WRONG reasons.

Funny thing is how people get pissed off and don't understand why the people of those countries hate us and want us to get the hell out.

Nationalism, anyone?

[ShadowTklr]

I broke the first rule of debate. I attacked the debater, and not the issue.

Ven, up until last night, I was sure I was taking my objections out on your point of view, but after re-reading my posts, I see I was clearly taking them out on you. For that, I apologize.

I've always respected your point of view in many posts I've read from you in the past. You've always been a gentleman and respectful of others. I should have afforded you the same respect.

I think I was afraid you might use WMDs (Words of Mass Destruction) and so I launched a pre-emptive attack. That was obviously not the right thing to do.

I wanted to post this apology here as well as sending you a PM because if I'm willing to attack you publicly, I should also be willing to apologize publicly if I'm wrong, and I was clearly wrong for making it personal.

So, in the spirit of humility and fairness, I again apologize to you and invite you to lambast, chastise, reprimand, and scold without reprisals from me. I figure I have a couple of them coming. :cool:









(Perhaps this will set the example for Bush to apologize to the American people for all the lies he's told...nah! LOL. Okay. I'll stop.)

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by venray1

You are right my graamar was skewed a bit. I will clarify. I choose the present administration (which takes strong action against those that would have us all dead) over those that would sit back and do nothing. (Kerry and friends)


Okay, I'm curious. How, exactly, has the current US administration taken ANY action that has been effective against those that planned and authorised the attacks on 9/11? I've been looking at this quite a bit over the last few weeks (see the threads on Clarke's testimony and others) and am genuinely interested to know what your view is on this. I guess there's three key questions:

1)How have the attacks on Afghanistan hurt terrorists in general and al-Qaeda in particular?

2)How has the invasion of Iraq hurt terrorists in general and al-Qaeda in particular?

3)Is America (and for that matter those countries involved in the 'Coallition of the Willing') safer now because of these attacks and, if so, how?

On a side note, and again I'm genuinely curious as to the answer to this question, is any increase in American safety worth the 8,000 - 15,000 civilian deaths (and, though I hope to hell what we're seeing now isn't the first signs I fear I'm wrong, the potential degeneration of Iraq into Civil War) caused by these two actions. If it is, then how is America different to those that attacked and killed ~3,500 civilians on 9/11?

And just to state my 'agenda' up front - I'm a UK citizen, if I was voting in the US I'd vote for Kerry BUT not because I "hate bush". Just looking at his record to date on environmental, economic and social issues I'd have a hard time voting for him but the War on Iraq is the deciding factor. Politics is politics and it's a dirty, immoral game... but when a war is justified on false or misleading evidence, and when those involved refuse even now to admit to those mistakes (as far as I know it's only Colin Powell who's come close to that?) then something is very, very wrong. All that said, it's your right to vote for who you wish and I would never criticise you for whatever choice you make.

Steve.

[qjakal]

People tend to oversimplify the difficulty of combatting what is essentially a "network of networks", rather than a demographically definable country or nation. Here's a link to an article by an expert that touches on many of your questions.

But the point that many here in the US are struggling with is the removal of a countries regime, based on intelligence reports, flawed or otherwise. This is a radical departure from our normal SOP and is scary even when you're not the country targeted. We've interfered in an evolutionary process...namely the overthrowing of a tyrant, and while I won't shed a tear for that mass murdering palace building waste of protoplasm, it seems dangerous to change the future, so to speak, in this manner. I think that he would have been overthrown internally eventually, and obviously the transition period would have been different...not necessarily better, in fact more likely brutal given the divided nature of Iraq.

It makes me uncomfortable, though for reasons other than the ones I've seen espoused here so far....
--------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing3/witness_gunaratna.htm

Rohan Gunaratna (PhD St Andrews MA Notre Dame FRSA UK) has 18-years of operational, policy and academic experience in counter terrorism. He is head of terrorism research, Institute for Defence and Strategic Studies, Singapore; Senior Fellow, Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence, University of St Andrews, Scotland; Honorary Fellow, International Policy Institute for Counter Terrorism, Israel. He has authored eight books, including "Inside Al Qaeda: Global Network of Terror" (Columbia University Press, New York, 2002), an international bestseller, and "Jane's Counter Terrorism (2003), the leading CT handbook. He has served as a consultant to the UK and US law enforcement communities.)

[venray]

Originally posted by ShadowTklr
I broke the first rule of debate. I attacked the debater, and not the issue.



No hard feelings on my part. No offense taken;) This type of thread tends to lead us all down the path of trying to make our point so tenaciously that we sometimes don't type the words in the way in which we mean them. Thank you for the posted apology, though it wasnt necessary to do it here. I DO appreciate it and also your point of view.


Ray

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by qjakal

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing3/witness_gunaratna.htm


Ummm, link seems to be broken as of 21:45GMT, 07/04/04.

You've hit the nail on the head with the Network of Networks. There seems to be no simple way to strike back against a geographically dispersed group, and in attempting to do so I suspect the end result will be more death, chaos in Iraq (chiefly for the reason you stated) and a breading ground for more 'recruits to the cause'. So how do you intimidate a group who have no permanent base, who have no country or people to be intimidated and who can effectively vanish into civilian populations with relative ease? If the answer is "you can't" then no amount of military force would help. Certainly I cannot see a connection between reducing the size of the standing army (especially as at least some of those capabilities were scheduled to be replaced by newer, more advanced weapons systems) and any way of stopping 9/11 through military might.