[FormerACLUmember]

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

IMAGINE WHAT A JOHN KERRY ADMINISTRATION WOULD LOOK LIKE CONSIDERING HIS 20 YEAR VOTING RECORD AGAINST DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS STARTING WITH HIS OPPOSITION TO RONALD REAGAN'S SDI INITIATIVE [STAR WARS] WHICH LED TO THE DEMISE OF THE SOVIET UNION.

Just think about this with an open mind. This is factual information and could very well happen again if we don't get our act together. If this country gets in a defenseless position similar to what Clinton put us in the terrorists will have a field day and it won't be in Iraq.

[Bahbah]

GREAT POST!

[Salvation]

Bush bump. We need our military!

[FairOpinion]

The Facts About Military Readiness (Sept. 2000 -- how Clinton slashed the military)

The size of the U.S. military has been cut drastically in the past decade. Between 1992 and 2000, the Clinton Administration cut national defense by more than half a million personnel and $50 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars. The Army alone has lost four active divisions and two Reserve divisions. The number of total active personnel in the Air Force has decreased by nearly 30 percent. In the Navy, the total number of ships has decreased from around 393 ships in the fleet in 1992 to 316 today. Even the Marines have dropped 22,000 personnel.

[the_Watchman]

This one is a little off base. When Bill Clinton came to the presidency the Soviet Union had just dissolved before our eyes. The level of threat was greatly reduced.

I think it is very appropriate to argue that the economic progress seen under Clinton, such as approaching a balanced budget, was due to prior Republican administrations. However, I believe that any President would have, and probably should have, reduced our general level of armament.

[wagglebee]

Bump!

[JesseHousman]

bttt

[Defender2]

Article Post#1.

Good Post and food for thought.


FReegards, D2

[StriperSniper]

My guess was going to be that was a Sen. Ketchup plan.

[Tommyjo]

It's called the ending of the Cold War. There was no requirement after the break up of the Soviet Union to have such large standing forces. The strategic stuff went under treaty with the Russians. You as a taxpayer in the US, and myself as a taxpayer in the UK ,contribute to the dismantling of Russian subs and bomber aircraft under these treaties.

START Treaty link:

http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/start1text.htm

Done at Moscow on July 31, 1991, in two copies, each in the English and Russian languages, both texts being equally authentic.

FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
George Bush
President of the United States of America

FOR THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS:
M. Gorbachev President of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

The Central Forces in Europe treay restructured the old NATO/Russian standing armies facing each other. Consequently they are limited by treaty as are the numbers of tanks and aircraft deployed. The drawdown negated the numbers of the US forces necessary and they became redundant. The same happened in the UK after the break up of the Soviet Union. Your post gives a totally misguided slant on the issue.

[lainde]

bttt