PDA

View Full Version : Name this country..............



crate78
12-23-06, 03:17 PM
The following was out around the year 2000, and has pretty much been dormant since. Now that the powers that be are talking about increasing our military, this comes into pretty sharp focus.

******************
Name the country with:

709,000 regular active duty service personnel;
293,000 reserve troops;
Eight standing army divisions;
20 Air force and navy air wings with 2,000 combat aircraft
232 strategic bombers;
13 strategic bombers;
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
Red China?..............................NO
Great Britain?..........................Wrong again
USA ....................................Hardly

Give up?

Well, don't feel too bad if you are unable to identify
this global superpower because this country no longer
exists. It has vanished. These are the American military
forces that have disappeared or been eliminated during
Bill Clinton’s 8 years as President..

Sleep well, America

**************************
SF
crate

thedrifter
12-23-06, 04:18 PM
Italy;)

SuNmAN
12-23-06, 04:37 PM
The following was out around the year 2000, and has pretty much been dormant since. Now that the powers that be are talking about increasing our military, this comes into pretty sharp focus.

******************
Name the country with:

709,000 regular active duty service personnel;
293,000 reserve troops;
Eight standing army divisions;
20 Air force and navy air wings with 2,000 combat aircraft
232 strategic bombers;
13 strategic bombers;
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
Red China?..............................NO
Great Britain?..........................Wrong again
USA ....................................Hardly

Give up?

Well, don't feel too bad if you are unable to identify
this global superpower because this country no longer
exists. It has vanished. These are the American military
forces that have disappeared or been eliminated during
Bill Clinton’s 8 years as President..

Sleep well, America

**************************
SF
crate


I sleep VERY well knowing that Post-Cold War era military reductions are now going to things such as healthcare and education.

We still have 1 million+ active duty personnel. The Cold War is over, wtf are we going to do with 1.7 million active troops during peacetime? Keep them just "in case" a war happens?

2,000 combat aircraft. Please, do we currently have any shortage in aircraft right now? Our air force is still BY FAR the most modern and one of the largest in the world. Whats wrong with getting rid of 2000 obsolete fighters? Our new F-22A will outgun any fighter aircraft in the world, and we don't need that many of them because other countries don't have that many advanced fighters.

232 strategic bombers - yeah, as if we really need any extra strategic bombers after the Cold War. And as if we're short on strategic bombers. Come on now. Plus I betcha 20 bucks those 232 dismantled strategic bombers are of the B-52 type, which we are trying to phase out.

500 ICBMs with 1950 warheads - ohhhh, God forbid we have 500 less ICBMs in the world !! America still has thousands more ICBMs than anyone else in the world.

4 aircraft carriers - Yeah, considering a Nimitz Class Aircraft carrier costs an average of $160 million a year to operate.

160 million x 4 = $640 million in annual savings.

Plus the 4 aircraft carriers decommissioned during Clinton's reign were of the old Forrestal Class, which were built and commissioned in the 1950s.

121 naval surface combatants and submarines - same story as above.

I lose no sleep knowing that Clinton made these adjustments and streamlined the military for the post-Cold War era. Our military is now more effective and more modern. Who the heck operates a nearly 2 million strong military using 1950's equipment anyway? We ain't no Communist China.

But if you want to worry and lose sleep about that, your prejogative

SuNmAN
12-23-06, 04:39 PM
I knew such a country didn't exist as soon as I looked at it...lol because the United States leads the world with 12 aircraft carriers, 10 of them of the Nimitz Class Nuclear Powered Supercarriers

Britain is 2nd with 2 light aircraft carriers
France has 1
China has 0

yeah, definitely am not worried about 4 decommissioned 1950's Forrestal Class carriers.

10thzodiac
12-23-06, 04:59 PM
The only thing that keeps me up at night worrying is the avian influenza , not how many atomic bombs Kim Jong-il has.

More soldiers from both sides of WW I died of "La Grippe" (Spanish Flu), than any other reason !

I say, we kill all the frigging chickens, forget the camel jockeys ! http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/18.gif

SF
10thz

rktect3j
12-23-06, 05:38 PM
We need more troops. What do we do with them when not at war you ask? I suggest border control.

10thzodiac
12-23-06, 05:50 PM
We need more troops. What do we do with them when not at war you ask? I suggest border control.

Joe, Smedley said to ask you, what took so long http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/06.gif

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. Not a single drop of American blood should ever again be spilled on foreign soil. Let's build up a national defense so tight that even a rat couldn't crawl through! War for any other reason is simply a racket." ~ Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC on Interventionism

SF
10thz

3077India
12-23-06, 11:18 PM
Joe, Smedley said to ask you, what took so long http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/06.gif

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. Not a single drop of American blood should ever again be spilled on foreign soil. Let's build up a national defense so tight that even a rat couldn't crawl through! War for any other reason is simply a racket." ~ Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC on Interventionism

SF
10thz
Smedley sounds like my kind of Patriot and Marine.

SuNmAN
12-24-06, 12:17 AM
We need more troops. What do we do with them when not at war you ask? I suggest border control.


700,000 additional troops for border control?

700,000 men x $14,000 (approximately Private's pay, this is an extremely conservative assumption that the 700,000 men above would be all E-1s but we all know that would not be the case)

= 9,800,000,000 (9.8 billion dollars a year)

now lets factor in the fact that probably some of these additional 700,000 would be Corporals...Staff Sergeants...Chief Petty Officers...Sergeants Major...Warrant Officers....Captains...Lieutanant Commanders...Colonels...Generals...Admirals

wow lets take a rough guess that makes an average servicemember's pay about $35,000, considering General grade officers make well over $100,000 in basic pay...Field Grade Officers make good money too

700,000 x $35,000 = $24,500,000,000 (24.5 billion dollars a year in basic pay)

Oooh, lets factor in some more...BAS? BAH? Housing? Food? Equipment for troops? Training?

I think $100,000 a year spent on a soldier would be a CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE

that would make the total 700,000 * 100,000 = 70,000,000,000/year

So by cutting 700,000 soldiers the government saves at least $70 billion a year.

I think thats a pretty good savings for peacetime.

Is border control really that big of an issue? The Mexicans take all the jobs the white man won't do anyway.

Personally, I've got bigger issues to care about.

SuNmAN
12-24-06, 12:20 AM
Have a strong work ethic and you won't have to worry about some Mexican taking away your minimum wage job.

I have 10x more respect for a Mexican working here illegally getting paid $4 an hour under the table sending money home to provide a better life for his family than those white trash guys you see on Maury who sit around and do nothing but wanna b*tch and moan. sweet life.

SkilletsUSMC
12-24-06, 12:31 AM
Have a strong work ethic and you won't have to worry about some Mexican taking away your minimum wage job.

I have 10x more respect for a Mexican working here illegally getting paid $4 an hour under the table sending money home to provide a better life for his family than those white trash guys you see on Maury who sit around and do nothing but wanna b*tch and moan. sweet life.

WRONG!

First off, who sais anything about WHITE PEOPLE HERE? we are talking about securing borders. Had a comment like this been posted in a Conservative point of veiw it would be deemed racist. Correct yourself.

Strong work ethics cant compensate for the fact that Illegals dont thave to be insured or work for minimum wage. cutting off the suppy of non domestic slave laborers would be bad in the short run driving prices up, but it would force employers to hire american labor, and eventually the jobs would be attractive to more american workers.

SkilletsUSMC
12-24-06, 12:41 AM
Back on subject.

700,000 more troops would pay off BIGTIME. Does it have to be 700,000? no but more is better. The Marine Corps has been doing the 7&7 rotation for a while now and its taking its toll. I may have to go back to Iraq a THIRD time. You are a reservist so it doesnt hit you as hard as me who is AD, but its not uncommon at all these days. Now lets think, what would happen if something big went down somewhere else? Ignoring the very very unlikely event of an invasion of the CONUS, lets say for the sake of the argument we had to go to war with Brazil. Who are we going to get to fight the war? I agree that some of the weapons on the original list are not needed in the Type of war we are fighting today, but what about tomorrow?

SuNmAN
12-24-06, 03:57 PM
WRONG!

First off, who sais anything about WHITE PEOPLE HERE? we are talking about securing borders. Had a comment like this been posted in a Conservative point of veiw it would be deemed racist. Correct yourself.

Strong work ethics cant compensate for the fact that Illegals dont thave to be insured or work for minimum wage. cutting off the suppy of non domestic slave laborers would be bad in the short run driving prices up, but it would force employers to hire american labor, and eventually the jobs would be attractive to more american workers.


I'm not worried about political correctedness. I never liked being politically correct and the fact is that caucasians represent nearly 80% of this country and hold the majority of the wealth, so I think the term "white people" would be fairly appropriate.

I personally have no problem with illegals who managed to cross the border into the US somehow someway who bust their butt working for almost inhuman wages yet manage to send money home to support their families.

I respect that a lot.

SuNmAN
12-24-06, 04:01 PM
Back on subject.

700,000 more troops would pay off BIGTIME. Does it have to be 700,000? no but more is better. The Marine Corps has been doing the 7&7 rotation for a while now and its taking its toll. I may have to go back to Iraq a THIRD time. You are a reservist so it doesnt hit you as hard as me who is AD, but its not uncommon at all these days. Now lets think, what would happen if something big went down somewhere else? Ignoring the very very unlikely event of an invasion of the CONUS, lets say for the sake of the argument we had to go to war with Brazil. Who are we going to get to fight the war? I agree that some of the weapons on the original list are not needed in the Type of war we are fighting today, but what about tomorrow?


I agree actually

but if you want to go back on topic, in the original post the author was being sarcastic about us not being able to sleep well due to military cuts during the Clinton administration, and I simply argued that those cuts were very reasonable, and in fact prudent.

I pray you won't have to go for the third time. I'm pretty sure I'll be going for the first time some time soon. My VA rep was a former US Army Ranger...been to Iraq 3 times when I met him last year in mid-2005. Its rough.

But the fact is we don't need to keep 1.7 million active men in peace time. There is no way anyone foresaw an unconventional occupational war in Iraq back in Clinton's reign from 1993-2000, so you cant really blame his administration.

crate78
12-24-06, 11:47 PM
Actually, I wasn't trying to be sarcastic. I was simply trying to point out that our military is stretched far too thin and the Reserves and National Guard are being relied on too heavily. We need to beef up our military again, regardless of what personnel and material it takes to get the Regular Active troops it back to the level they should be.

A cousin of mine has a son in the National Guard. He was back from a tour in Afghanistan for two months when he got called up to go to Iraq. We're talking National Guard here. I, myself, went from the Suez Canal Zone to the Far East in less than a year once, but I was USMC Regular and expected it because it was my full time job. I didn't come back from overseas from one direction, go back to a civilian job for two months, and then be ordered overseas in the other direction.

A neighbor of mine also has a son in the National Guard. He's been in the sandbox for a year and was anticipating being home by March. His unit has just been extended indefinitely. Our Reserves and National Guard are intended to operate in a back-up role, not be relied on as part of the full time force.

As far as cost goes, our Reserves and Guards are being paid full time now. Once the equipment level was brought back, payroll wouldn't be that much more for a Regular Active force at the current total level, with the Reserves and Guards going back to being weekend warriers at the weekend pay level.

crate

SkilletsUSMC
12-24-06, 11:57 PM
I agree actually

but if you want to go back on topic, in the original post the author was being sarcastic about us not being able to sleep well due to military cuts during the Clinton administration, and I simply argued that those cuts were very reasonable, and in fact prudent.

I pray you won't have to go for the third time. I'm pretty sure I'll be going for the first time some time soon. My VA rep was a former US Army Ranger...been to Iraq 3 times when I met him last year in mid-2005. Its rough.

But the fact is we don't need to keep 1.7 million active men in peace time. There is no way anyone foresaw an unconventional occupational war in Iraq back in Clinton's reign from 1993-2000, so you cant really blame his administration.

We were at war with inslamics durring that time. Some of us just didnt know it. Heres what I think we should do. Looking back at some of those old Stratigic bombers and these super highspeed aircraft cariers they have on the table, you can see that we can do with out them. The cost of one of them will cover the cost of many more soldiers+ gear.

+ A large standing army means more employed americans.

SgtHopperUSMC
12-25-06, 02:07 AM
I agree actually

but if you want to go back on topic, in the original post the author was being sarcastic about us not being able to sleep well due to military cuts during the Clinton administration, and I simply argued that those cuts were very reasonable, and in fact prudent.

I pray you won't have to go for the third time. I'm pretty sure I'll be going for the first time some time soon. My VA rep was a former US Army Ranger...been to Iraq 3 times when I met him last year in mid-2005. Its rough.

But the fact is we don't need to keep 1.7 million active men in peace time. There is no way anyone foresaw an unconventional occupational war in Iraq back in Clinton's reign from 1993-2000, so you cant really blame his administration.Yep could've retired this year!! Thanks Bill!!

SuNmAN
12-25-06, 10:45 AM
We were at war with inslamics durring that time. Some of us just didnt know it. Heres what I think we should do. Looking back at some of those old Stratigic bombers and these super highspeed aircraft cariers they have on the table, you can see that we can do with out them. The cost of one of them will cover the cost of many more soldiers+ gear.

+ A large standing army means more employed americans.


lol good call

but with a Professional, All Volunteer Force can we find that many more young Americans to volunteer without giving out exorbitant signing bonuses??

(I heard US Army signing bonus is 40k? I got ZERO cmon now lol)

Sgt Leprechaun
12-25-06, 11:14 AM
The bonus's are only for certain MOS's that are critical.


And, Sun, I don't care what color a person is, if they are here illegally (which is why it's called 'Illegal aliens', or it used to be) then they are breaking the law. Just that simple.

While I agree that those wanting to work are head and shoulders above some of the shiftless bums we now have, they need to come here legally.

Yeah, the 'peace dividend' is really paying off now, isn't it? Do you really think we can do without aircraft carriers (power projection/MEU protection )?

SuNmAN
12-25-06, 01:56 PM
The bonus's are only for certain MOS's that are critical.


And, Sun, I don't care what color a person is, if they are here illegally (which is why it's called 'Illegal aliens', or it used to be) then they are breaking the law. Just that simple.

While I agree that those wanting to work are head and shoulders above some of the shiftless bums we now have, they need to come here legally.

Yeah, the 'peace dividend' is really paying off now, isn't it? Do you really think we can do without aircraft carriers (power projection/MEU protection )?

1. I can agree with you. I'm not saying its right to be here illegally, but what I am saying is that that issue does not rate very high on my list personally at all.

2. It is VERY difficult to immigrate here legally. My mom knows some people who have college degrees and significant savings who want to immigrate to this country but cannot, let alone a Mexican worker with little education and less money?

3. I DON'T think we can do without our aircraft carriers. WE NEED THEM, ALL 12 OF THEM and perhaps more.

But the original post belittled Bill Clinton's administration for cutting the 4 carriers, and I just pointed out that the 4 carriers that were decommissioned were of the old 1950s Forrestal Class which have served for 40+ years and were obsolete. It is not an "anti military move" but rather a move to keep our military streamlined and modern.

We're not Red China. We don't keep weapons systems from the 1950s. We can afford to replace them with state of the art goodies ;)

Sgt Leprechaun
12-25-06, 02:02 PM
Ah, so noted!

But, Clinton did cut plenty of other things, and has much to answer for.

Of course, those carriers may not have been 'cut', either; they might have already been scheduled for de-commissioning.

OLE SARG
12-25-06, 02:48 PM
Let's see, where to start. Illegal Alien are called that for a reason, they are illegally here so hence, they are criminals!!!!!!!!! It don't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. AND don't give me the crap about them doing jobs Americans won't do - THAT IS BS!!!!!!!!!!!!
As far as the border issue goes, our dumbass politicians in D.C. were working on that issue THEN they had to go on their RECESS!!!!!!!!!!!!! Our last 4 or 5 presidents have to take some credit equally for our border fiasco!!!!!!! AND I cannot believe Bush is not doing more to secure our borders - our next attack here in the good ole U. S. of A. will be a nuclear device brought in from Mexico!!!! Mark my works on that one. And I believe that border security is one of the jobs of our military!!!!!!!!! At least last I heard it was!!

SEMPER FI,