Silly Liberals! Go take the Short Bus Home!

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-06-18 08:51am

If Clinton's Military "Won" the Iraqi War, then how do you explain this
meeting waaay back in 1972?

King of the Killing Zone, by Orr Kelly wrote: Worried about dissension and the growing confusion on Capitol Hill, DePuy called together six generals representing the Army's main power bases: materiel command, combat development, research and development, logistics, operations, and aviation. For several days in early 1972 the generals quietly slipped away from the Pentagon and drove about a mile west on Route 50 to Arlington Hall Station, home of the Army Security Agency, a supersecret code-breaking outfit. There, in bugproof security that kept the discussions secret from foreign spies and, more important, from the rest of the Army, the generals bargained away nearly half the weapons that had been competing for top-priority dollars.

The result was a list of five weapons that everyone agreed to support. There were two helicopters, an infantry fighting vehicle, an air defense system, and a tank.

The M-1 tank system began in 1972, and even the M1A2 which was
supposedly a Clinton-era model was originally the planned model:

King of the Killing Zone wrote: A few of the most critical issues remained until the last minute. Some of the decisions made in the final effort to hold down cost and weight later seemed terribly shortsighted. One of these was the decision to eliminate the so-called hunter-killer feature. This is a separate sighting system that permits the gunner to shoot at one target while the tank commander is fixing the next target in his sights. As soon as the gun goes off, the gunner swings onto the new target, ready to fire in moments. Also regretted later was the decision to leave off an auxiliary power unit, which permits a tank to operate its radios and other equipment without using fuel to run its main engine.

You want to know the real "legacy" that Bill Clinton's 8 year term left
us?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/ ... haul01.htm

Quoth The Great Leader:

This is what happens when morons like Clinton are allowed to be in office. Stupid shit boasted about his surplus while giving the USN only 2/3s of its maintenance budget and running CVBG's on countless extended deployments.

...

It all orbits back to Clinton. He ran the fleet at a high ops tempo while giving it 66% of its minimal maintenance budget. Most of that deficit had to be absorbed by the conventional carriers simply because the navy wasn't going to dare and cut corners on anything with a reactor. The result is all three are near wrecks.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2003-06-20 03:41am

It's political maneuvering. Liberals will say that economic issues will NOT carry over past a president's term, but military issues will? Just another example of picking and choosing what they want to harp on. The essence of politics.

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2003-06-20 10:32am

Actually it's dick cheney who is assuming the carry over of military power from president to president. They note the author of that quote.
And considering the changes made during the bush era, it is most certainly Bush's army.
And if you spend $100 billion dollars that you don't really know you have all of in your first months as president to "help the economy" while you repeal as much as possible of the last presidents economic programs, you've successfully made it your economy.

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-06-20 04:55pm

Well, as we all know Reagan was the one who actully built up most of the stuff we have today-- the ships especially but the whole M1 program was ramroded through by the Reaganites. Once the basic models were all in place, follow-up and more advanced models were natural. It is widely recognized that the Gulf War was won with Reagan's miltary....

....and after that, follow up designs were to be expected. The M1A2 is a descendant of Reagan's military, which Clinton was just fortunate enough to inherit.

The thing to bear in mind is that the cartoonist Trudeau is a political hack for the sooperleft, and if he thought he could get away with it he'd proudly proclaim Bill Clinton to be the inventor of food, water, and oxygen.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-06-20 05:37pm

The recent victories where won in spite of Clintons military policy, not because of it.

Dark Hellion · Post by **Dark Hellion** » 2003-06-21 08:46pm

Its just unfortunate that the military seems to always get fucked over when it comes to bugeting. When the liberals are in power the military has to doe twice as much on half the money, bleeding themselves dry, but too long with the conservatives and the large military spending and the politicians make them shove it into shitbrained projects that are technically unfeasable and after dumping 20 billion into the system that could go to mantenaince and general purpose funding they close the project down.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2003-06-21 09:14pm

Most of that deficit had to be absorbed by the conventional carriers simply because the navy wasn't going to dare and cut corners on anything with a reactor. The result is all three are near wrecks.

I thought we all we had in service were Nimitz class carriers. What are the three conventional carriers that we have, and what class are they, I mean are they Midway holdovers from the 1940s or something?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-06-21 09:24pm

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote: I thought we all we had in service were Nimitz class carriers. What are the three conventional carriers that we have, and what class are they, I mean are they Midway holdovers from the 1940s or something?

Kitty Hawk, Constellation and John F Kennedy, first two where laid down in the late 50's and the Kennedy was built in the mid 60's. It was only in the 1990's that nuclear powered carriers became a majority in the fleet and the Kennedy should last until 2018 if her major maintenance problems can be overcome.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-06-21 09:29pm

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:
Most of that deficit had to be absorbed by the conventional carriers simply because the navy wasn't going to dare and cut corners on anything with a reactor. The result is all three are near wrecks.
I thought we all we had in service were Nimitz class carriers. What are the three conventional carriers that we have, and what class are they, I mean are they Midway holdovers from the 1940s or something?

No, we have two Kitty Hawks and the JFK. All of them were from the last generation of conventional carriers.

Constellation is due to be retired soon. This tour will be her last as I understand it.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-06-21 09:33pm

Stormbringer wrote:
No, we have two Kitty Hawks and the JFK. All of them were from the last generation of conventional carriers.

Constellation is due to be retired soon. This tour will be her last as I understand it.

While she should be replaced by Ronald Regan this year the USN has been looking into extending her life for another deployment.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-06-21 09:48pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:
No, we have two Kitty Hawks and the JFK. All of them were from the last generation of conventional carriers.

Constellation is due to be retired soon. This tour will be her last as I understand it.
While she should be replaced by Ronald Regan this year the USN has been looking into extending her life for another deployment.

Not suprised, that was the plan anyway. We're short on carriers for all we need to do. And I don't doubt we'll be doing more soon enough.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2003-06-21 09:58pm

He's French, whaddaya expect?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-06-21 10:07pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Not suprised, that was the plan anyway. We're short on carriers for all we need to do. And I don't doubt we'll be doing more soon enough.

Actually, with each carrier having the whole of 40 fighters and a capacity for 75 it's not pointful unless we expect to launch another massive amphibious operation using army helicopters within the next year or so.

We have 11 under strength air wings for twelve carriers, adding a thirteenth just drains away manpower, and the USN is still short 8000 men. Some escorts have as much as 20% crew deficiencies. We don't need more ships, we need planes and men and bombs.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-06-21 10:17pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:Actually, with each carrier having the whole of 40 fighters and a capacity for 75 it's not pointful unless we expect to launch another massive amphibious operation using army helicopters within the next year or so.

We have 11 under strength air wings for twelve carriers, adding a thirteenth just drains away manpower, and the USN is still short 8000 men. Some escorts have as much as 20% crew deficiencies. We don't need more ships, we need planes and men and bombs.

It doesn't have a point except to put carriers more places. There's no doubt they're understrength, undermanned and in need of repair. But that's a problem with all the armed services thanks to Clinton.

Rhadamanthus · Post by **Rhadamanthus** » 2003-06-23 01:21am

Connie is being officially scrapped from what I hear.

And unless absolutely necessary I don't see the JFK making it to '18, when we go through maintenance qualification in command indoc they use the Kennedy as an example of what not to do.

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-06-23 01:36am

Rhadamanthus wrote:Connie is being officially scrapped from what I hear.

And unless absolutely necessary I don't see the JFK making it to '18, when we go through maintenance qualification in command indoc they use the Kennedy as an example of what not to do.

"Connie"....

Hmmm...

USS Condoleeza Rice?

CNN: President-Elect Condoleeza Rice defeated Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton in a landslide vote....

"When do I get my carrier" she asked upon taking the oath of office.....

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-06-23 04:50am

A black woman as President? She'll have to give speeches running back and forth across the stage, while some redneck in the audience with a rifle:

"she won't stand still!"

Eddie Murphy was once great. Now he sucks.

Post by **Steve** » 2003-06-23 01:02pm

Vympel wrote:A black woman as President? She'll have to give speeches running back and forth across the stage, while some redneck in the audience with a rifle:

"she won't stand still!"

But how will the redneck get a shot off after I take my size 23 sneaker and kick him in the balls?