PDA

View Full Version : Facts that John Kerry does not want you to know...



DolphinDevil28
08-17-2004, 10:08 PM
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

MUST BE USA?

GIVE UP?

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

John Kerry on Defense -- I hadn't seen this list printed before. It
would make one heck of a mailer if it were sent to voters.

He voted to kill the Bradley Fighting Vehicle
He voted to kill the M-1 Abrams Tank
He voted to kill every aircraft carrier laid down from 1988.
He voted to kill the Aegis anti aircraft system
He voted to Kill the F-15 Strike Eagle
He voted to Kill the Block 60 F-16
He voted to Kill the P-3 Orion upgrade
He voted to Kill the B-1
He voted to Kill the B-2
He voted to Kill the Patriot Anti Missile System
He voted to Kill the FA-18
He voted to Kill the B-2
He voted to Kill the F117
In short, he voted to kill every military appropriation for the
development and deployment of every weapons systems since 1988 to
include the battle armor for! our troops. With Kerry as president our
Army will be made up of naked men running around with sticks and
clubs.

He also voted to kill all anti terrorism activities of every agency of
the U.S. Government and to cut the funding of the FBI by 60%, to cut
the funding for the CIA by 80%, and cut the funding for the NSA by
80%.

But then he voted to increase OUR funding for U.N operations by
800 %

Is THIS a President YOU want? :shakeno:

ohall
08-17-2004, 11:02 PM
Just think what a safer world it would be if Kerry had his way. That way the real problem America wouldn't be the world power it is today. He's the man!

:D

Oliver...

Clumpy
08-17-2004, 11:51 PM
Republicans have controlled the House of Representatives AND Senate (exception of about 1 year) since 1994. That was 6 of the 8 yrs that Clinton was in office. Yep........it's all Kerry's (or Clinton's) fault. What a bunch of f'in hypocrits Neo-Cons are :shakeno:

Clumpy
08-17-2004, 11:51 PM
If we had to fight in Korea, a tank like the M-1 would be neutralized by terrain.

ohall
08-17-2004, 11:57 PM
Republicans have controlled the House of Representatives AND Senate (exception of about 1 year) since 1994. That was 6 of the 8 yrs that Clinton was in office. Yep........it's all Kerry's (or Clinton's) fault. What a bunch of f'in hypocrits Neo-Cons are :shakeno:

You seem to always miss the freaking point!

Oliver...

ohall
08-17-2004, 11:57 PM
If we had to fight in Korea, a tank like the M-1 would be neutralized by terrain.

Yeah so that's why Kerry didn't vote for it?

Sheesh!

Oliver...

DolphinDevil28
08-18-2004, 12:17 AM
Republicans have controlled the House of Representatives AND Senate (exception of about 1 year) since 1994. That was 6 of the 8 yrs that Clinton was in office. Yep........it's all Kerry's (or Clinton's) fault. What a bunch of f'in hypocrits Neo-Cons are

OK clump, if that's the case, then WHY THE HELL ARE THE DEMS always giving all the credit for the good economy of those years to Clinton and Clinton only?????


Swoosh, two points for me and the Reps. :D

PhinPhan1227
08-18-2004, 02:30 AM
If we had to fight in Korea, a tank like the M-1 would be neutralized by terrain.


Well, I guess that settles it. If any weapon is ineffective in Korea we don't need it. Christ, you should be running the Pentagon. Just in case you're curious however...the terrain in the Middle East is IDEAL for vehicles like the M-1 and M-2. But I guess we don't need them there either.

Clumpy
08-18-2004, 02:52 AM
Yeah so that's why Kerry didn't vote for it?

Sheesh!

Oliver...

We obviously need a military that is not as dependent upon a frontline heavy battle tank. We are no longer fighting the "Cold War". A vote against a weapons program such as the M1 doesn't make one weak vs defense. It simply is a vote to utilize funds differently. Is it not possible that Kerry (and others) were ahead of the curve and realized that we needed a different military structure? I do remember during the 90s (when I was still in), that the Army wanted to downsize armor forces in lieu of increased flexibility (quicker more mobile forces that were easier to deploy).

Clumpy
08-18-2004, 02:57 AM
You seem to always miss the freaking point!

Oliver...

The point is? Oh.....that Republicans, while in control for 75% of the Clinton Administration, had as much responsibility for the state of our military today, good and bad. That they had as much responsibility for problems within our national security functionality. Yep, I get the point!

Clumpy
08-18-2004, 02:58 AM
Well, I guess that settles it. If any weapon is ineffective in Korea we don't need it. Christ, you should be running the Pentagon. Just in case you're curious however...the terrain in the Middle East is IDEAL for vehicles like the M-1 and M-2. But I guess we don't need them there either.


The point is as I stated in a previous post.

ohall
08-18-2004, 03:43 AM
The point is? Oh.....that Republicans, while in control for 75% of the Clinton Administration, had as much responsibility for the state of our military today, good and bad. That they had as much responsibility for problems within our national security functionality. Yep, I get the point!

Not at all. The weakening of the CIA and FBI started during the late 70's after watergate. DEM's are the ones that created those stove pipes everyone talks about.

As you know a President can veto any bill put in front of him. It's called the old give and go. For the government to function there has to be comprimise. If Clinton was allowed to do what he wanted there would have been no military or IA left in this country. If you recall our government closed down 2 times because Clinton and the congress were basically having hand to hand combat about our budget. This is the enviroment he created as President.

The point was Kerry voted against almost every major defense bill this country has every put forward while he's been a senator and lt. governor. Keep thinking this is not becoming very clear to the ppl of America.

Oliver...

Section126
08-18-2004, 06:57 AM
If we had to fight in Korea, a tank like the M-1 would be neutralized by terrain.


By your logic.......The M-1 Abrams is ideal to fight the ChiComs......so then we need it........SHEESH!!!!!!!!!!!!

PhinPhan1227
08-18-2004, 10:15 AM
The point is as I stated in a previous post.


And the point I stated is that there are still theaters where the M-1 is vital (as Gulf War I showed). Further, there's a little country called China. They seem to think that Main Battle Tanks are still a good thing. Might be nice to keep a few around just in case.

VJ1252
08-18-2004, 06:05 PM
And the point I stated is that there are still theaters where the M-1 is vital (as Gulf War I showed). Further, there's a little country called China. They seem to think that Main Battle Tanks are still a good thing. Might be nice to keep a few around just in case.
we arent in an arms race with China. China isnt an immediate threat to US security. Right now the military needs to spend more money on ways to fight terrorism (i.e. unmanned drones, special forces, etc.).

PhinPhan1227
08-18-2004, 09:31 PM
we arent in an arms race with China. China isnt an immediate threat to US security. Right now the military needs to spend more money on ways to fight terrorism (i.e. unmanned drones, special forces, etc.).

I agree that we need to shift our focus that way. But that doesn't change the fact that we need to maintain a core that is capable of meeting the Chinese on the open battle field. And if you think we aren't in an arms race with China than maybe you should examine all the little things China is doign...upgrades to their missile programs, upgrades to their navy, upgrades to their general level of technology. Again I point you towards the years between WWI and WWII. France left WWI as the strongest military on the planet along with England. They were so self assured in that strength that they sat stagnant for 25 years. I think we all know the results of that stagnation.

ohall
08-18-2004, 09:36 PM
we arent in an arms race with China. China isnt an immediate threat to US security. Right now the military needs to spend more money on ways to fight terrorism (i.e. unmanned drones, special forces, etc.).

And that's what they are doing. Even Kerry agreed with this move. Well he did a several weeks ago anyway. :D

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
08-18-2004, 10:10 PM
And that's what they are doing. Even Kerry agreed with this move. Well he did a several weeks ago anyway. :D

Oliver...


Do you have a link, or anything referencing Kerry supporting pulling troops from Europe?

VJ1252
08-20-2004, 02:47 AM
I agree that we need to shift our focus that way. But that doesn't change the fact that we need to maintain a core that is capable of meeting the Chinese on the open battle field. And if you think we aren't in an arms race with China than maybe you should examine all the little things China is doign...upgrades to their missile programs, upgrades to their navy, upgrades to their general level of technology. Again I point you towards the years between WWI and WWII. France left WWI as the strongest military on the planet along with England. They were so self assured in that strength that they sat stagnant for 25 years. I think we all know the results of that stagnation.
I understand what your saying but our army is more than capable of defeating China in an open battle field and will be so for years if not decades. Even if our tanks were outdated aerial support from stealth fighters and bombers, unmanned aerial drones, and attack helicopters would probably swing any battle in our favor.
we are light years ahead of China in military technologhy. the WWII comparrision isnt valid because after world war II france spent less money on arms since germany was not supposed to have an army if the Versaille treaty had been enforced frances defenses would never have been tested. france did build fortress like defense on their border. However this defense was useless against the nazi's blitzkreig approach which the world had never seen before. Also americans arent afraid to fight like the french. Many countries are doing the same things China is are we in an arms race with them too.

ohall
08-20-2004, 03:13 AM
Do you have a link, or anything referencing Kerry supporting pulling troops from Europe?

No, but I did hear it on CNN and FNC earlier this week. I think about 6 weeks ago they both said he did an ABC report where he talked about that and he said, and I'm para-phrasing that he would reduce our troop force in S. Korea and would prob do the same in Europe as well because our main war is the war on terrorism.

Sorry 1227, I get most of my political info from TV.

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
08-20-2004, 05:52 AM
I understand what your saying but our army is more than capable of defeating China in an open battle field and will be so for years if not decades. Even if our tanks were outdated aerial support from stealth fighters and bombers, unmanned aerial drones, and attack helicopters would probably swing any battle in our favor.
we are light years ahead of China in military technologhy. the WWII comparrision isnt valid because after world war II france spent less money on arms since germany was not supposed to have an army if the Versaille treaty had been enforced frances defenses would never have been tested. france did build fortress like defense on their border. However this defense was useless against the nazi's blitzkreig approach which the world had never seen before. Also americans arent afraid to fight like the french. Many countries are doing the same things China is are we in an arms race with them too.

Right now China is on pace to become the worlds largest economy. So they will have the money for an arms race. And as for technology, don't strain a muscle patting yourself on the back. France, Germany, Russia and Israel have VERY advanced weapons systems. Between them, they have comparable weapons tech levels to ours. And ALL are perfectly willing to sell that technology to the highest bidder. Just because we are on top today doesn't mean we will stay there. BTW, also try to remember that any conflict we fight against China will almost certainly be in Asia. The length of your supply lines has ALWAYS been the great equalizer.

VJ1252
08-20-2004, 03:50 PM
Right now China is on pace to become the worlds largest economy. So they will have the money for an arms race. And as for technology, don't strain a muscle patting yourself on the back. France, Germany, Russia and Israel have VERY advanced weapons systems. Between them, they have comparable weapons tech levels to ours. And ALL are perfectly willing to sell that technology to the highest bidder. Just because we are on top today doesn't mean we will stay there. BTW, also try to remember that any conflict we fight against China will almost certainly be in Asia. The length of your supply lines has ALWAYS been the great equalizer.
Who do you think Israel got those advanced weapons from? I doubt Israel would sell sensitive technology to China if it would upset their best ally. we also dont know the true strength of China's army. Communist countries usually inflate their military might.

PhinPhan1227
08-20-2004, 04:10 PM
Who do you think Israel got those advanced weapons from? I doubt Israel would sell sensitive technology to China if it would upset their best ally. we also dont know the true strength of China's army. Communist countries usually inflate their military might.


Actually, they developed them. Do you know that when tried to sell them the Bradley AFV, they took a few of them, made MAJOR improvements, sent them back, and told us they would buy them if we built them THAT way? We adopted their changes into the design(not minor changes either, major structural and technological changes). Or take their Main Battle tank the Merkava as another example. Do you know it's body is one piece of solid armor? It's not riveted plates, it's one solid piece. There's not another tank, the M-1 Abrams included that can put a hole in it from the front. They also improved the avionics of most of the aircraft we have sold them. As for not pissing off their major ally...do you remember the case several years ago when an Israeli spy was ejected from the US? Israel will take care of Israel first.