Is this true or just more freeper crap?

On one of the other forums I participate on some freeper posted this. I'm guessing it's not true, or if true all taken out of context. Anybody have any info?

~709,000 REGULAR (ACTIVE DUTY) PERSONNEL.

~293,000 RESERVE TROOPS.

~EIGHT STANDING 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.

~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

CHINA ? NO

GREAT BRITAIN ? NO

FRANCE ? WRONG AGAIN ( What a Laugh!!!!!)


MUST BE USA ? STILL WRONG (SORT OF)


GIVE UP ?


~THESE ARE THE AMERICAN MILITARY FORCES THAT WERE ELIMINATED DURING THE ADMINISTRATION OF BILL CLINTON AND AL GORE.


SLEEP WELL

communism.

the downsizing of the armed forces began under Poppy Bush and "Unka" Dick Cheney at the end of the cold war. I saw a clip (State of the Union?) recently of Poppy bragging about reductions and additional cuts that were in pipeline.

It started, if memory serves, in the late 80's and that would have been later Reagan term into Bush the Elder. My husband (at the time) was AF and I remember watching all of these base closings and wondering when it would end and how they could close so many and still give us an effective military. Lots of jobs lost in the civilian sector too.

Clinton budgets DOA to Congress Remember the rodent and other repukes.

This chart:

http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/military/ms8.pdf

Shows the really steep drop between '89 and '92, during which time, IIRC, Clinton's penis was not yet in office (there are those who argue that the Clenis acted retrospectively--I believe it's called the "Clenile penumbra effect").

According to this chart, military personnel decreased right about 400,000 under BushDaddy.

That would be, well, gosh! More than half the tragic loss this propaganda piece claims.

I'm not gonna waste the time trying to do the same exercise re: bombers 'n missiles 'n tanks, oh my.

Sleep well, little patriotic lying dingbats.

who the fuck do they think is going to attack us?

We have the biggest military in the world and look what happened on 9/11.

Look what happened to Nick Berg. He was beheaded with a knife. Billions of dollars in defense spending didn't help him one fucking bit.

They think everything and everyone is out to get them.

I have noticed a new sense of hysteria since the prisoner abuse became public.
They can't wait to spread their fear to others. No time for casual chit chat anymore - they just jump into their paranoid nightmares.

Fear fear fear - everyone is out to get them and their stuff!

I agree that this is one of the most idiotic fears in a country filled with idiotic fears.

I guess that we stand in imminent peril of the mighty Mooslim navy, composed of fishing boats, freighters, and Saudi luxury yachts assembling in a giant flotilla and shipping A BILLION MOOSLIMS over here to take the country by main force and compel our wimmen to wear burkhas.

These drooling fools apparently believe the Fierce Warrior Chieftain when he recites one of his more idiotic lines (how, really, can you choose amongst all the idiotic line?): The oceans don't protect us any more.

Whenever he stammers that one out, I wonder what we were all so worried about during the Cold War. Why did young children climb under their nuke-protective desks? The oceans, after all, were protecting us!

The oceans always have, and always will, protect the US from invasion by anything except the wild Canadians and the massed armies of Central and South America.

The people who fear that Osama bin Laden is going to come over and personally turn the US into an Islamic theocracy are the sort of people who make it ever more embarrasing to be an American.

my father being offered, and then pressured to take an earlt out. He didn't he stayed for 20. But others took the early out option and the cash that went with it.


Besides weren't these the cuts Cheney suggested?

<snip>Cheney defended Bush's statement and said the size of the U.S. forces has been cut, while commitments abroad have increased. He said in the past seven-and-a-half years, the number of divisions in the Army dropped from 18 to 10, the number of Air Force wings went from 24 to 13, and the number of Navy ships fell from 600 to less than 300.

Cuts started on Cheney's watch
Cheney acknowledged that as secretary of defense under the Bush administration, he had supported reductions in the military.

Speaking on CBS's "Face the Nation", Cheney said the cuts were needed to reflect the changing nature of U.S. security with the collapse of the Soviet Union, as strategy shifted from global to regional combat. <snip> http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/27/military.preparedness/

and another http://www.evote.com/News/EV08232000J.html

However an important fact was left out. That downsizing was begun under Regean, and continued under Bush the First. It also leaves out the fact that we still have the largest military in the world and spend a higher percent of our GNP on it's support.

They already were diminishing the size of the force and outsourcing technical jobs back in the late '80s, when my first husband was in the AF. They spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $65K to train him for a technical job that was obsolete by the time his first tour of duty ended, and the jobs they offered him were crap -- it was designed to discourage people who might have signed up a second hitch because they liked their jobs, but weren't committed to a career. There were no signing bonuses for the ones who did stay, or they were pretty lame, if I recall. It wasn't a priority at that point, so crying about Clinton continuing the policies of the twelve years before he was elected is disingenuous, at best.

...they are using the "continuing an existing policy" argument to explain their actions prior to 9/11.

just depends where you look - also the base closings have been going on all along - there's a list out now for more closures

700 troops cut right there. For nothing. :grr:

Take that back to your freeper friend.

during the Star War years and Scumsfeld was in his admin. They wanted to reduce troops and have all future wars be push button. How could anybody forget that era?

Did anybody else notice the look on Heir Scumsfeld's face during Shock and Awe, he looked like he was having an orgasm everytime he talked about it to the press. I guess it must have escaped him that thousands of innocent civilians were being killed and maimed, or maybe that was the part that gave him so much pleasure....

country of no threat. Why on earth would anyone attack a nation if they felt they didn't have adequate troop strength; especially when that country did not pose an imminent threat?

Either * thought he had an adequate military OR he attacked without an adequate military. Both arguments eliminate Clinton responsibility.

Not only have we lost 775 American soldiers under Bu$h, we also lost over 3,000 American civilians.

I don't know if those statistics are true. But America was a heck of a lot safer when Clinton was President.

I will sleep well after Kerry is elected.

It was called the peace dividend and brothers and sisters the people that won the cold war aren't getting a penny of it.

But considering that the US military is bigger & spends more money on the next ten largest nations COMBINED, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

Remember - everything a freeper says is a lie, unless substantiated by hard verifiable evidence.

Either lies, half-truths or spin... same as a "Social Security" fear email I received last week.

Here it is. Continue at your own peril.

---

Subject: Social Security

When Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income tax each year,

4.) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.


Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away," you may be interested in the following:

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically-controlled House and Senate.


Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.


Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U. S.


Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!


Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violation of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens believe it!

Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during this 2004 election year!

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be
planted and maybe good changes will evolve.

How many people can YOU send this to?

Keep this going clear up through the 2004 election!! We need to be heard!

---

All unsourced and undocumented; talking about "historical information" rather than today. The actions of Lyndon Johnson are no
more relevant to this year's election than are the actions of Richard Nixon or the personal history of Bill Clinton's member.

The only statement I can glean from this propagandist b-s relevant to this year's election was the following statement:

> the Democrats turn around and tell you that
> the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

Well, what about this charge? How do any of the undocumented statements in the email counter this charge, that the Republicans wish to do away with Social Security?

Taking the statements and Q/A at face value (foolishly), the best right-spun inferrence one could walk away with relative to the Republican position is, "Yeah, we're looking to change Social Security, but we're not the first ones to do it."

Most critically, however, the email fails to include three simple words that would plainly and simply backup the Democratic charge: Starve the Beast.

If one buys into the "stave the beast" strategy to eliminate all federal social programs (except for the upward wealth redistribution mechanism that is the military-industrial-congressional complex, of course), good on ya; you can then at least be viewed as intellectually honest (though counterbalanced by a moral bankruptcy).

However, if you're not familiar with the phrase and/or honestly believe that the Republican Party would take any measures relative to Social Security not aimed at shrinking the program, you need to do some reading. Can you say Grover Norquist?

It's the peace that wasn't planned for; that was, and is being handled miserably, and that, all freepers, is "B U S H B A G"! :silly:

ask them to back up what they are claiming -- that's the quickest way to shut up a freeper.

to supply the "FACTS" on reagan, and papa, and junior bush! :)

It was called the peace dividend. Ronald Regan's greatest leagacy.

and find out if his figures are authentic.

http://www.defenselink.mil/

about those days.

Clinton continued the process, already begun, of reducing the size of our armed forces made possible by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. As a consequence of this financial saving he was able to balance the budget and usher in a period of prosperity that now is just a distant dream.

Most of the eliminated weapons systems are of limited use against the threats we now face. Of what value is an aircraft carrier or an ICBM against an enemy who attacks us with boxcutters?

The Bush* junta has had plenty of time to increase troop levels but has chosen not to. Does anyone doubt that if after 9-11 the pResident called for volunteers to defend this country and take the war to our enemies the lines would have stretched for blocks at every recruiting station? Instead we were told to go to the mall and buy something.

If anyone has trouble sleeping it is because this criminal junta has chosen to ignore our real enemies and instead forfeit the goodwill of the world to drag us into an unwinnable war with the wrong enemy, a war based on a lie and without a strategy for winning.