"""You're right Spiney,"""
More often then not. (Glad to see that your catching on.)
"""Democrates traditionally support the Military and fund it as opposed the the Republicans who traditionally do not support the miliary. Right?"""
Wrong. (Maybe your not catching on after all.)
"""That's your point isn't it? """
Nope. (1 for 3.)
"""Does the graph attach the other factors? the revenues, the deficit, the general/overall budget? """
No. Perhaps this will be of help to you.
http://www.planemath.com/activities/pmenterprises/airfoils/airfoils30help.html
"""Do you really believe that the Dem's (in general) support the military?"""
Yes. (I base that contention on the fact that we allways seam to have one after every Democratic adminastration.)
"""And the Repub's (in general) do not?"""
No. We've had a military after their admins as well.
"""Do you really believe this?"""
Nope. (remember what I said about making assumptions about me?)
"""Because I do not, """
Suit yourself.
"""if you and the other dems would like to go to war over it, I'll research it, and you can too and we'll see who wins, for say 20 premo sticks? Go ahead, take the dare, come on, if you've got a ba!! on your a$$, go for it. Or do you just prefer to sit back and take pot shots?*(retorical question) """
Not much point in answering "Rhetorical" questions.
"""Democrats like you are good and decent people and republicans are evil and simply try to destroy the environment, kill people by depriving them of basic human rights and services, and their sole reason for being is to try to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Yeah, good thing there are democrats who's sole selfless existence is the betterment of their fellow man and peace and love to all mankind... Why do republicans hate so many people so much? Thank God for the democrats! Chairman Mao was a democrat, wasn’t he? After all, he was for the common man? He didn’t believe in wealth? He believed in redistribution? And he certainly supported the military? So he was a good democrat, right?"""
[aplause] A lovely speach, still those would be your words and not mine.
"""Is it Friday yet? 🙂 maybe… """
Depends on whose calendar you referance.
}:->
http://astro.nmsu.edu/~lhuber/leaphist.html
Now, back to the debate.......(and my words.)
Clinton along with Bush sr. and Reagan (and their respective congresses) cut back on military spending because the cold war was over. (Credit for that goes to both the inept Soviet Politburo and Reagan who simply outspent them.) There was no need for a standing army of that size and configuration.
It was generally accepted that the type of conflict we were likely to face (according to the various think tanks and strategist of the time), would be far differant from the ones we had faced in the past. I give credit to all three adminastrations for moving financial resources to other areas at the same time that they invested in R & D on weapons systems that would be better suited to these new conflicts. (The ROV's and JDAM's we have today had their programs started back then.)
Clinton didn't "gut" the military, he simply continued with what Reagan/Bush had started. That was retooling the military to better serve the needs of the United States. Jobs become obsolete, weapons systems become obsolete, bases become obsolete. Certainly the change was diffacult for many in the military. People generally don't like major changes in their lives.
I realize that it's a burning passion of yours to demonize Clinton but the facts in this case tell a differant tale
