[c312]

Originally Posted by Stammer

its a real men bomb sovereign nations

Don't forget that Clinton bombed Bosnia and Iraq during his presidency. He also sent troops to Somalia, but left at the slightest trouble (even though the people there were still in a terrible situation)

[mR.cLeAn]

If we had magic, that could have saved hundreds of lives as well, however magic does not cost money, it takes leprechaun gold.

[mR.cLeAn]

By the way, its a war ... So you can bet on casulties. This is not a little game, where you can respawn.

[Short Hand]

[quote="Sgt>Stackem":44d2e][quote=Stammer]

Originally Posted by "Sgt>Stackem":44d2e

its a good thing Clinton didnt cut back on military spending so the next guy wouldnt inherate this problem ............................................... oh wait..................................

Give me a break...The Republicans cut military pay earlier in Bush's presidency. And most of the money in the defense budget goes towards technology not the actual solider.

PS: When Bush cut taxes he's pretty much cutting Military pay since taxes are what the soldiers are payed with.[/quote:44d2e]


nope, no break. Clinton did more damage to the military than anyone else I can think of. President Bush has been playing catchup ever since



PS Pyro.... he was too big a pussy to do anything except get blow jobs in the Oral Office[/quote:44d2e]



President Clinton established more foreign bases and deployed more troops around the world more then any other President....... oOo: . He also had the office after the Soviet collaspe, there was (in my mind still), no need for a military build up. Instead he built a strong economy, a properous America.........

[Madmartagen]

how are people still blaming clinton for whats going on with our military? he hasnt been president for 5 years? it was clintons military that helped defeat the taliban, its bush's military that is in iraq. if bush is such a big gun spender, how come he hasnt found osama bin laden? how come he hasnt caught mullah omar or anyone else at the top of the most wanted list? for someone who's such a great man who takes risk and isnt afraid to go against popular opinion, he isnt very resourceful with a well financed military isnt he?

[c312]

You try to find one person in the entire world..

[Madmartagen]

[url=http://www.theimagehosting.com:e90b4][img]http://images6.theimagehosting.com/Wheres%20Waldo.jpg[/img][/url:e90b4]

[Jin-Roh]

They aren't [looking] for him anymore.

[tomxtr]

U.S. defense spending had declined from a Cold War high of around $375 billion in 1988 to around $265 billion in 1997, during the Clinton administration. It wasn't until Clinton's impending impeachment hearings in '99 that he agreed to increase defense spending by $124 billion over 7 years.

That's not to say that this is Clinton's fault. However, its common knowledge that Democrats prefer to spend more money on domestic programs than defense spending. Also, economies tend to be cyclical. To give Clinton all the credit for a booming economy during his administration may be overstating his influence.

If you've read or seen movies about wars, you realize that wars are fought with what you have now. To say that more lives could have been saved if body armor was improved or performed better, shouldn't be breaking news. That's like saying that more enemy soldiers could be killed if our weapons were more accurate. No shit!

[Short Hand]

Originally Posted by c312

Don't forget that Clinton bombed Bosnia and Iraq during his presidency. He also sent troops to Somalia, but left at the slightest trouble (even though the people there were still in a terrible situation)

President Bush went into Somolia, Clinton partially ran on withdrawing from the conflict, so he acheived his agenda on that issue.

[c312]

Wikipedia says they sent forces in Dec. 1992. That means they went in before Clinton was inaugurated, after he was elected.

[newt.]

yeah, more armor = slower+more tired troops... in 100 degree weather. fuck hilary that stupid commie bitch

[Stammer]

[quote="newt.":ff35a]yeah, more armor = slower+more tired troops... in 100 degree weather. fuck hilary that stupid commie bitch[/quote:ff35a]

No armor = far more dead soldiers.

[c312]

but they have armor.


This issue is dumb, if we had better tanks, less soldiers would be killed. If we had better rifles, less soldiers would be killed. If we had better sunscreen, less soldiers would get burned. This isn't an issue of not having enough, it's an issue of the current design not covering enough, it's a design flaw that will be fixed, just like all other designs get improved upon once weaknesses are detected.