"MARTINIZED" DISCLAIMER: I am passing this along. I cannot verify it's authenticity or veracity. It could be an urban legend. Take it for what it's worth! 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. 2 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. If you help John Kerry get elected, we won't have any effective U.S. Military capability left. SLEEP WELL!
I'm neither a Democrat nor a Clinton fan but lets cut the spin off of this a little. Rumsfeld when asked if we needed to add two divisions back to our armed forces said no we are where we need to be. You can't have it both ways are we so weak we couldn't defend ourselves from the French or are we where we need to be like the current administration says we are?
Well, the point is that we cannot withstand any more cuts and Dems have shown a propensity and an eagerness to do just that.
this is part of a transcript of a speech given by two members of the house of representatives in congress in 1999. it is a fact that these men said these things, but not a fact that it is true. i imagine it is mostly true. the actual speech is as follows: "709,000 active service personnel, eight standing Army divisions, 20 Air Force and Navy air wings with 2,000 combat aircraft, 232 strategic bombers, 13 strategic missile submarines, with 232 missiles, 500 ICBMs, intercontinental ballistic missile systems, with 1,950 warheads, four aircraft carriers, 121 surface combat ships and submarines." it is slightly different from the other list, nothing too different though. the actual speech is here: http://www.house.gov/hunter/stm-militaryshortage1.htm i will not classify this story as false, since i do not know how much the military has reduced in size. it seems plausible that these numbers could be accurate. i will agree with the point these figures are making. i would tentatively believe this as mostly true. however, i would also point out that clinton /gore are not necessarily solely to blame, as i have heard republicans as well as military leaders make points about reducing the types of forces we have. for instance, making a smaller ground force and putting more money into things like unmanned aircraft, satellites, and privatization of non-combat tasks. so i think many republican leaders might favor increasing military spending and firepower while decreasing the actual manpower the military. this is my "martinization" of your post.
agreed, after discussing it with retired major grimes (my dad) during my recent visit to fort bragg, i concluded we need more men. my army ranger/intel/brother in law has done 4 combat tours (kosovo, kuwait,iraq, and currently afghanistan), while his father, a retired general, did one (vietnam) in his whole career. my grandfather, colonel grimes, never went to combat once in a lifetime career. i think we need more soldiers, and that i would be pleased if we had enough soldiers to give our current guys longer breaks from combat.
