STORM2K

They have never had the military's best interest in mind. They prevented true victory in Vietnam when they prevented Nixon from re-entering in 72 after a clear violation of the armstice, and they are doing the exact same thing now. This is why I am proud to say that I will never vote for a Democrat

the scary thing is if one of them becomes president

rainstorm wrote:the scary thing is if one of them becomes president

Yeah I see what you mean when Clinton was in office we had +very little international conflict and a +surplus..instead of a deficit..and -he had an affair...no president has ever done that before

Vietnam would not have been won if we would have gone back in full scale in 1972. The war was long ago lost by then and there was no popular support from the American people to increase military presence in Vietnam. We supported a corrupt goverment in South Vietnam that never was going to gain popular support among the people and we fought a limited war not giving our troops what was needed to win this war. IMHO opinion the tide turned at the Tet offensive. The Generals had been bragging about how the Viet Cong were finished and the body counts where inflated yet this supposed finished Foe launched a massive assault that ended in complete military failure. Our troops destroyed the Viet Cong in the Tet offensive but the North had won a political victory even though they where soundly defeated in battle. After Tet it was the North Vietnam regular troops that had to do the burden of the fighting with the Viet Cong all but wiped out. but the American public had seen and heard enough and that war really starting tearing the country apart even worse.Who knows if we could have gained the upper hand if we took to the offensive then but alot of people believe we could have gained the upper hand or won. Instead though a war weary country starting withdrawing from a botched war effort and our fine troops who did all the fighting for this country took the blame for others mistakes, Republican and Democratic.

Who's RS? :?

Stephanie wrote:Who's RS? :?

RS is Rainstorm.

ColdFront77 wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Who's RS? :?

RS is Rainstorm.

Oh...

Derek Ortt wrote:They have never had the military's best interest in mind. They prevented true victory in Vietnam when they prevented Nixon from re-entering in 72 after a clear violation of the armstice, and they are doing the exact same thing now. This is why I am proud to say that I will never vote for a Democrat

It is not just the Dems against military!! Ever heard of BRAC??? This is backed by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. He is now in the process of eliminiating military bases, including HomePort Pascagoula and Keesler Airforce Base. Keesler is the same base the Hurricane Hunters fly out of to investigate Tropical Systems.

I'd rather this not turn inot a debate over the Hurricane Hunters, though that can go in another thread. (My position is that NOAA can handle it, only Inaccuwx would complain).

Some bases should be consolidated into even larger ones to eliminate some of the long chain of command that ties up many issues

Defense Investigations
December 13, 2001

Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld
Secretary of Defense
1000 Defense, The Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-1000

Dear Secretary Rumsfeld:

We urge you to recommend that President Bush veto the FY2002 Defense Authorization Bill unless Department of Energy (DoE) nuclear weapons facilities are included in the new BRAC process.

POGO’s recent report, U.S. Nuclear Weapons Complex: Security at Risk, found that DOE nuclear weapons facilities failed to protect nuclear materials from mock terrorists attacks during security tests more than 50% of the time. Some of these facilities are not only redundant, but they no longer have a national security mission. Closing unnecessary facilities reduces the threat of terrorist attacks and saves the taxpayers billions of dollars.

As a result of the September 11th terrorist attacks, and warnings by the Director of the Homeland Security Office, Tom Ridge, of future attacks, it is in the nation’s interest to make sure that we are taking the appropriate precautions that could save that lives of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of Americans from a possible terrorist attack in the future. Unfortunately, it is politics as usual.

Your leadership and determination on this issue has been unwavering. Along with many former Secretaries of the Defense Department, you have not only made BRAC a priority, but you have put pressure on congress to act. While Members of Congress continuously assert their patriotism for this country, they actually do a disservice to the American public by not agreeing to close unneeded military bases and nuclear weapons facilities, further putting the welfare of the American public at risk. Don’t let congress of the hook.

Sincerely,

Danielle Brian
Executive Director
Project On Government Oversight

Excuse me Derek.. just making a point about the HH Hunter base at Keesler in case some were unfamiliar with the base. You turned this into a tropical weather debate with your reply. IMO you know the truth hurts. If you think that these bases should be consolidated into larger ones then you are no better than the Dems. What about the towns that depend on these bases? You made an argument but have nothing to back you up.

Lindaloo wrote:

Derek Ortt wrote:They have never had the military's best interest in mind. They prevented true victory in Vietnam when they prevented Nixon from re-entering in 72 after a clear violation of the armstice, and they are doing the exact same thing now. This is why I am proud to say that I will never vote for a Democrat

It is not just the Dems against military!! Ever heard of BRAC??? This is backed by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. He is now in the process of eliminiating military bases, including HomePort Pascagoula and Keesler Airforce Base. Keesler is the same base the Hurricane Hunters fly out of to investigate Tropical Systems.

I thought that this was rather an odd thing to do NOW since we're in a war against terrorism. :?

I am actually saying that we need larger bases, albiet fewer of them to reduce the number of possible military targets. Case in point, I grew up near a relatively small reserve base/army post. This area was placed on a high alert during 9/11. The town in no way depends upon this base/post. These are the types that could close without much problem at all (the base was also a reason, along with the NYS power authority, that the areas was one of the #1 targets during the Cold War for a Soviet strike)

I highly doubt that the potential target theory will hold water with anybody. He is targeting those bases for closure because of the deficit and trying to save money. It has NOTHING to do with American safety at all.

That's what I heard Lindaloo. Rumsfeld's reason was to save money. We're worried about that NOW???

It MAY BE more efficient to have larger bases, but to me it doesn't look like this has anything to do with creating efficiencies.

Rainband,
LOLOL Are you ever right!!!! Some people don't know when they have it good.

Hmmm... and here all this time when Fox was mentioning it was the Republican administration that cut veteran's benefits I thought that was a negative thing. Silly me... I must be delusional. Only dems would do that !!!