And if Kerry wins .........
 

CAN YOU NAME THIS COUNTRY?

~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 IT......

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.

If you help John Kerry get elected, we won't have any effective U.S. Military
capability left. This means we'll be virtually helpless against the enemy.

HOPE YOU SLEEP WELL KNOWING THIS!

Also, keep this in mind as the political pundits spew their anti-Bush
propaganda. There are several claims that our servicemen are deployed for too
long and serving longer tours. This is sure to continue as the election looms
closer. If we still had all these military personnel, our troops could be
rotated more frequently.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"No shirt, no skirt, full service"

And if Kerry wins .........
 

So, what you're saying is that Bu**** used Clinton's army/navy/airforce.
Sounds like a terrible situation. Except, that Rummy decided,
against all military advice, to go to Iraq with too small a force and
for no good reason. Instead of finishing what he started in Afganistan,
Iraq was just too great a threat.

Kerry says, let's bring in the UN.
Bu**** says, let's bring in the UN now that we don't have any other
choice and after I told them to **** off.
Heck, even the Supreme Court told Bu**** to **** off w.r.t. Gitmo
enemy combatants, and the Supreme's are the ones who elected
him.

You pick.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"SAIL LOCO" wrote in message
...
CAN YOU NAME THIS COUNTRY?

~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 IT......

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.

If you help John Kerry get elected, we won't have any effective U.S.
Military
capability left. This means we'll be virtually helpless against the enemy.

HOPE YOU SLEEP WELL KNOWING THIS!

Also, keep this in mind as the political pundits spew their anti-Bush
propaganda. There are several claims that our servicemen are deployed for
too
long and serving longer tours. This is sure to continue as the election
looms
closer. If we still had all these military personnel, our troops could be
rotated more frequently.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"No shirt, no skirt, full service"

And if Kerry wins .........
 

"SAIL LOCO" wrote in message
...
If you help John Kerry get elected, we won't have any effective U.S.
Military
capability left. This means we'll be virtually helpless against the enemy.

The enemy? You mean US citizens held without due process?? Oh, you
mean Al Qaeda. EXCEPT, that we had an opportunity to get rid of their
leadership in Afganistan, but Bu**** waited months to do something.

Also, keep this in mind as the political pundits spew their anti-Bush
propaganda. There are several claims that our servicemen are deployed for
too
long and serving longer tours. This is sure to continue as the election
looms
closer. If we still had all these military personnel, our troops could be
rotated more frequently.

What a lot of crap... you watch too much Rush and Fox... oops. Rush is
a drug addict. Sorry.

And if Kerry wins .........
 

"SAIL LOCO" wrote

CAN YOU NAME THIS COUNTRY? .....

Jeeze, Sail, you forgot we'd just won the cold war when Slick Willy took
office. We'd been preparing for WW3 for 50 years, longer than most here
have lived. Two scenarios drove the arms race. One was mutual nuclear
destruction; the other assumed that both sides were deterred but that the
USSR attacked Europe sans nukes. Our plan (hope) was for US and German
troops to hold the 'Reds' back til we could mount a massive "sealift"
bringing enough troops to drive them back. Knowing this, the USSR built
submarines and aircraft to stop the sealift. Naturally, the USN built ships
to counter that threat ... and the beat went on, both sides diverting much
of their GNP to this race. Then the USSR went broke, crumbled, and the
threats supporting these scenarios blew away.

Nuc's and ICBMs are hidiously expensive to guard and maintain. Should Slick
& Co have continued to guard and maintain enough of them to destroy the USSR
100 time over, now that the USSR was gone? Would Ronnie Ray-Gun, the man who
won the cold war, have done so? I think not.

Any Idea how many schools and roads didn't get built, or harbors dredged, to
support a massive US presence in Europe - enough troops and materials to
hold off the USSR - or what it costs to keep a bird farm and supporting
ships at sea? Should Slick have kept on diverting US dollars after the
threat it had faced off for 50 years had disappeared, or should we bring
some home and use the savings to fix the Inland Waterways? What would you
do?

What Bush then Slick did was eliminate deadwood to afford the new hi-tech
stuff that let us utterly destroy the 4th strongest military in the world in
weeks, almost with impunity, whilst continuing to bitch slap the Taliban. I
think swapping some well-worn ships and equipment for UAVs armed with smart
missiles that a young lady at a console 200 mile away can put thru some
freak's bedroom window is a grand idea. If I was a dictator aspiring to get
some nukes that'd give me something to think about. Reagan almost killed
Kadafi with the crap he inherited from JFK; today he could have done it
without collateral damage, so it 'taint like we're worse off.

And if Kerry wins .........
 

It's your twisted logic.. you answer it.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 01:25:11 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

closer. If we still had all these military personnel, our troops could
be
rotated more frequently.

What a lot of crap...

Could you perhaps explain why troops could not be rotated more frequently
if
there were more troops?


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

Who goes duck hunting with Jamie Gorelick?

And if Kerry wins .........
 

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 01:21:39 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

So, what you're saying is that Bu**** used Clinton's army/navy/airforce.
Sounds like a terrible situation. Except, that Rummy decided,
against all military advice, to go to Iraq with too small a force and
for no good reason. Instead of finishing what he started in Afganistan,
Iraq was just too great a threat.


Do you have any brain cells that work?





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

And if Kerry wins .........
 

Clearly you don't. So you love Bu****. Great for you. Too bad
he's married. Vote for him if you're actually able to read the ballot.
It just proves that even fools vote from time to time.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 01:21:39 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

So, what you're saying is that Bu**** used Clinton's army/navy/airforce.
Sounds like a terrible situation. Except, that Rummy decided,
against all military advice, to go to Iraq with too small a force and
for no good reason. Instead of finishing what he started in Afganistan,
Iraq was just too great a threat.


Do you have any brain cells that work?





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

And if Kerry wins .........
 

Yes. It's your twisted logic. If Rummy had listened to his generals,
there would be more troops. What an idiot.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:42:54 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

It's your twisted logic.. you answer it.

Nope. It was Loco's. Since you've contradicted him across the board I'm
asking for the basis of your conclusion that troops could not be rotated
more frequently if there were more troops.

Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

Who goes duck hunting with Jamie Gorelick?

And if Kerry wins .........
 

On 30 Jun 2004 10:36:12 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 21:22:17 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

If Rummy had listened to his generals,
there would be more troops.

Typically simplistic approach. Anyone with a trace of the ability to read
between the lines will realize that "his generals" were seriously split as
to what changes, if any, to make as a result of the collapse of the CSU.
Some remained mired in the Powell doctrine even in a very different world
from what Powell envisioned. Others thought some rethinking was in order.
Rumsfeld sided with the rethinkers, and generals on the losing side retired
or were retired, becoming presidential candidates or consultants to the big
3 networks where they could continue to urge their lost cause.

Are you saying it was the job for the military to plan the post war
occupation? It seems to me that the planning for the post war
occupation was as flawed as the reasons for going to war in the first
place, and that can be laid at the feet of
Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz. I don't believe it was the generals
who said we would only need 30,000 troops to provide security or that
the reconstruction would be paid for out of current oil revenues.

Just how badly does this administration have to totally screw up
before their loyalists can even recognize that things are off track?
Does it really make no difference to you that the generals who
correctly saw that this was illconceived and misguided "lost" the
argument to those who remain? Holy crap. The republicans appear to
have a no-lose situation...they have the undying loyalty of a very
large number of very stupid people. I voted for Bush the first time,
but at least I have learned from my mistake.

And if Kerry wins .........
 

Dave wrote:

Typically simplistic approach. Anyone with a trace of the ability to read
between the lines will realize that "his generals" were seriously split as
to what changes, if any, to make as a result of the collapse of the CSU.
Some remained mired in the Powell doctrine even in a very different world
from what Powell envisioned. Others thought some rethinking was in order.
Rumsfeld sided with the rethinkers, and generals on the losing side retired
or were retired, becoming presidential candidates or consultants to the big
3 networks where they could continue to urge their lost cause.

Typical self-contradictory "neoconservative" approach.

The fact that the naysayers were proven right in every particular seems to be
totally irrelevant, doesn't it?

DSK