Question for Iraq war supporters

[DeadCanDance]

Well, there must have been a few people on this thread lying their asses off.

According to these government statistics, defense spending during carter's term (1977-1981) went from 110 billion a year to 180 billion a year.

That's a 63% increase, or an average of nearly 16% increase annually.

I know inflation didn't average 16 percent from 1977 to 1981.




table 2 - National Defense Budget

http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publicat...cal_and_Pro/U.20070607.Historical_and_Pro.pdf

 

[tigerbob]

Well, there must have been a few people on this thread lying their asses off.

According to these government statistics, defense spending during carter's term (1977-1981) went from 110 billion a year to 180 billion a year.

That's a 63% increase, or an average of nearly 16% increase annually.

I know inflation didn't average 16 percent from 1977 to 1981.




table 2 - National Defense Budget

http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publicat...cal_and_Pro/U.20070607.Historical_and_Pro.pdf

I'm not sure I buy the lying their asses off bit. Just because the posted statistics differ doesn't mean people are lying, just that they have different views and are more easily persuaded by statistics that give credence to their opinions.

And with so many statistics available, it is easy to see that after more than 100 years, Andrew Lang's comment still holds good:

"The problem arises when statistics are used like a drunk uses a street light - for support rather than illumination".

 

[RetiredGySgt]

so... are you admitting that Bush HAS cut VA benefits?

or are you admitting that Carter did NOT cut defense spending?

take YOUR pick

I never said Carter did not technically increase spending. But as has been shown he did not actually increase spending. Having lived through both events in question, dependent on those budges, I can tell you that Carter did not do anything for the military and that Bush HAS done things for the VA.

But thanks for playing.

 

[maineman]

I never said Carter did not technically increase spending. But as has been shown he did not actually increase spending. Having lived through both events in question, dependent on those budges, I can tell you that Carter did not do anything for the military and that Bush HAS done things for the VA.

But thanks for playing.

are you suggesting that actually increasing defense spending AFTER the completion of the Vietnam war and the devastation that conflict caused our budget would have been an appropriate policy decision?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

are you suggesting that actually increasing defense spending AFTER the completion of the Vietnam war and the devastation that conflict caused our budget would have been an appropriate policy decision?

When our armed services do not have adequate weapons, ammo and equipment, as was true even in 1979, 1980 and 1981, then it is the DUTY of the President to ask for, demand an increase. National Defense is THE biggest reason for a Federal Government.

Reagan did exactly that. He went so far as to shut down the Government until he got his increases also. I know I was told two years in a row that we probably wouldn't get paid at the end of December or mid January because he vetoed all bills that did not meet his demands.

Ohh and Congress not the President lost those fights. The Public understood quite well who was to blame.

 

[maineman]

you didn't answer my question, but that is no big surprise.

 

[MasterChief]

are you suggesting that actually increasing defense spending AFTER the completion of the Vietnam war and the devastation that conflict caused our budget would have been an appropriate policy decision?

Look the fact is lib's like to point to the Carter Administration like it was some kind panacea in foreign affairs, that he got a "raw deal" or there were forces beyond his control--that is ludicrous. Carter made his own bed by the policies he chose to pursue. And one of those policies was reducing the military. Charlie Beckwith, the founder of Delta Force, did not have the proper funding to train his men like he wanted. Yet he was asked to put a rescue mission together drawing from several different branches who had not worked together before. The result is the disaster at Desert One and why now Special Op's has it's own air resources. A small percentage increase in defense spending when inflation was running 8 to 10 percent or higher is a decrease. It does not take an economic genius to figure that out. The Carter Administration is the worst presidency ever, period: high unemployment, high inflation, reduced stature in the international community, impotent foreign policy, resulting in a one term presidency. And remember Ronald Reagan didn't just win, he won in a landslide. The people at that time spoke and no amount of liberal rewriting history can change that.

During the twentieth century, after every major conflict the politic leadership's tendency is to cut military spending--understandable, but not wise. Each time we've done that, it has come back to bite us in the...well, you know where. Do I think GWB is the greatest President? No. I absolutely despised Donald Rumsfled. But do I think he's the worst? No. Some presidential historians put Carter and Hoover in that category.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

you didn't answer my question, but that is no big surprise.

I surely did, here let me spell it out for you since you obviously have trouble reading.

Our military was short of weapons, ammo, and equipment at criminal levels. YES Carter should have insisted on more money for the military.

Better?

 

[maineman]

Look the fact is lib's like to point to the Carter Administration like it was some kind panacea in foreign affairs, that he got a "raw deal" or there were forces beyond his control--that is ludicrous. Carter made his own bed by the policies he chose to pursue. And one of those policies was reducing the military. Charlie Beckwith, the founder of Delta Force, did not have the proper funding to train his men like he wanted. Yet he was asked to put a rescue mission together drawing from several different branches who had not worked together before. The result is the disaster at Desert One and why now Special Op's has it's own air resources. A small percentage increase in defense spending when inflation was running 8 to 10 percent or higher is a decrease. It does not take an economic genius to figure that out. The Carter Administration is the worst presidency ever, period: high unemployment, high inflation, reduced stature in the international community, impotent foreign policy, resulting in a one term presidency. And remember Ronald Reagan didn't just win, he won in a landslide. The people at that time spoke and no amount of liberal rewriting history can change that.

During the twentieth century, after every major conflict the politic leadership's tendency is to cut military spending--understandable, but not wise. Each time we've done that, it has come back to bite us in the...well, you know where. Do I think GWB is the greatest President? No. I absolutely despised Donald Rumsfled. But do I think he's the worst? No. Some presidential historians put Carter and Hoover in that category.

I am not sure I will agree that drawing down the military at the end of WWII came back and "bit us in the ass".

I am not suggesting that Carter was a great president or even a good one.... I am saying that paring back on a war machine that had been supporting near a half a million deployed troops in a war zone for nearly a decade made sound economic sense AND sound military sense.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I am not sure I will agree that drawing down the military at the end of WWII came back and "bit us in the ass".

I am not suggesting that Carter was a great president or even a good one.... I am saying that paring back on a war machine that had been supporting near a half a million deployed troops in a war zone for nearly a decade made sound economic sense AND sound military sense.

LOL, Korea ring a bell? We had so badly depleted our military that the North Koreans nearly won that one.

 

[maineman]

I surely did, here let me spell it out for you since you obviously have trouble reading.

Our military was short of weapons, ammo, and equipment at criminal levels. YES Carter should have insisted on more money for the military.

Better?

throughout the Carter administration, the ships upon which I served never were short of anything... I got to shoot lots of missiles and torpedoes and blow NGFS ranges to bits throughout his administration. Maybe your commanding general had merely pissed off some of the logistics guys!

and your editorial use of the word "criminal" is kinda like your misuse of the word "felon".

And I don't have trouble reading, I just have a difficult time understanding gibberish.... most folks do.

 

[maineman]

LOL, Korea ring a bell? We had so badly depleted our military that the North Koreans nearly won that one.

So.... are you suggesting that drawing down the US military after WWII was a bad idea?

Do you really think that, had we not done so, that the Korean conflict would have ended any differently?

Oh...and the north koreans weren't close to winning anything. the Chicoms were.

 

[MasterChief]

I am not sure I will agree that drawing down the military at the end of WWII came back and "bit us in the ass".

Really? Why don't you ask the Korean vets if the post WWII draw down did not hurt the United States. Or better still give Dick Winters a call and ask him. The only way you can say that is you've never studied United States military history.

 

[MasterChief]

Oh...and the north Koreans weren't close to winning anything.

That is not exactly correct: when the north crossed into the south our troops had no effective anti-tanks weapons, no meaningful heavy artillery, and our air-force was still using propeller driven planes. If I remember this correctly: they pushed us into a small little chuck of land near Pusan which extended their supply lines--supply lines we easily attacked from bases in Japan which slowed their advance, give us an opportunity to appeal to the United Nations. The Russian MIG was far superior to anything we had at the time. Luckily, communist tactical doctrine emphasis relayed on overwhelming numbers instead of individual initiative and sound tactical maneuvering and that give us a very small time period to put an effective plan together to push the North back. I know of no military historian who does not believe the north did not come close to pushing allied forces into the sea. If you know of one, please name him and his work.

 

[maineman]

That is not exactly correct: when the north crossed into the south our troops had no effective anti-tanks weapons, no meaningful heavy artillery, and our air-force was still using propeller driven planes. If I remember this correctly: they pushed us into a small little chuck of land near Pusan which extended their supply lines--supply lines we easily attacked from bases in Japan which slowed their advance, give us an opportunity to appeal to the United Nations. The Russian MIG was far superior to anything we had at the time. Luckily, communist tactical doctrine emphasis relayed on overwhelming numbers instead of individual initiative and sound tactical maneuvering and that give us a very small time period to put an effective plan together to push the North back. I know of no military historian who does not believe the north did not come close to pushing allied forces into the sea. If you know of one, please name him and his work.

go back and re-read my post. You seemed to have missed the second half.

and please, so that I can fully appreciate your perspective, can you tell me your rating?

As I have said before, I am an O-5 1110 so that you know MY perspective.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

go back and re-read my post. You seemed to have missed the second half.

and please, so that I can fully appreciate your perspective, can you tell me your rating?

As I have said before, I am an O-5 1110 so that you know MY perspective.

Ahh yes, there we have it. The Officer thinks because he was an officer that makes him smarter and correct.

Korea was nearly lost because the US was so badly drawn down in its military after WW2. You either are ignorant of historical facts or are trying to pretend what happened wasn't the near disaster it was. Reserves had to be called up, men that thought their obligations had been served in WW2. All to fight a piss ant third world Country.

As for your claim that because your ship was ready does not change the fact that the Army and Marines were NOT ready in the mid to late 70's. What equipment we did have was broken and so badly worn as to be as good as broken. Every marine did NOT have a rifle and I suspect it was the same in the Army. Ammo was in tight supply. We were still using crypto gear we KNEW the enemy had captured and was compromised. Well as well as being 20 plus years old technology. I was repairing comm gear with VACUUM Tubes in it in 1981. Most of the radios the Corps had couldn't even USE crypto gear. We used hand me down trucks that the army had phased out as to old to use. Our tanks were M-48's, I wouldn't doubt the Corps still had M-47's when I joined.

Let's see, your always hot and bothered when someone doesn't fall all over themselves accepting your "expert" opinion on Naval matters or on your having served in Lebanon.

Remind me when you served in the Marine Corps or the Army. I served in the National Guard and the Marine Corps and my father didn't retire from the Army until at least 1984. CSM served in the army. GunnyL served in line units in the Corps.

Using YOUR criteria, which of us, you or us, would know more about the situation in question?

 

[maineman]

Ahh yes, there we have it. The Officer thinks because he was an officer that makes him smarter and correct.

Korea was nearly lost because the US was so badly drawn down in its military after WW2. You either are ignorant of historical facts or are trying to pretend what happened wasn't the near disaster it was. Reserves had to be called up, men that thought their obligations had been served in WW2. All to fight a piss ant third world Country.

As for your claim that because your ship was ready does not change the fact that the Army and Marines were NOT ready in the mid to late 70's. What equipment we did have was broken and so badly worn as to be as good as broken. Every marine did NOT have a rifle and I suspect it was the same in the Army. Ammo was in tight supply. We were still using crypto gear we KNEW the enemy had captured and was compromised. Well as well as being 20 plus years old technology. I was repairing comm gear with VACUUM Tubes in it in 1981. Most of the radios the Corps had couldn't even USE crypto gear. We used hand me down trucks that the army had phased out as to old to use. Our tanks were M-48's, I wouldn't doubt the Corps still had M-47's when I joined.

Let's see, your always hot and bothered when someone doesn't fall all over themselves accepting your "expert" opinion on Naval matters or on your having served in Lebanon.

Remind me when you served in the Marine Corps or the Army. I served in the National Guard and the Marine Corps and my father didn't retire from the Army until at least 1984. CSM served in the army. GunnyL served in line units in the Corps.

Using YOUR criteria, which of us, you or us, would know more about the situation in question?

1. I pointed out to the masterchief that I was in the navy too and told him my specialty.... and I asked for his. I did not suggest or imply any superiority.

2. I would definitely defer to YOUR ultimate knowledge about the state of the marine corps in the post vietnam era.

3. I also asked you if you really thought that maintaining a military machine that had been supporting nearly a half a million troops in a war zone for nearly a decade would have made any sense given the other priorities facing our nation's economy in the years immediately after vietnam.

 

[trobinett]

1. I pointed out to the masterchief that I was in the navy too and told him my specialty.... and I asked for his. I did not suggest or imply any superiority.

2. I would definitely defer to YOUR ultimate knowledge about the state of the marine corps in the post vietnam era.

3. I also asked you if you really thought that maintaining a military machine that had been supporting nearly a half a million troops in a war zone for nearly a decade would have made any sense given the other priorities facing our nation's economy in the years immediately after vietnam.

Good points, and certainly a FAIR question.

 

[MasterChief]

and please, so that I can fully appreciate your perspective, can you tell me your rating?

No, I will not tell you my rating. It has nothing to do with the merits of my argument, sir. Either respond to the issues or don't, but just because you were an officer does not mean you know squat about American military history. I saw my share of officers who arrogantly thought that they knew it all, only to get in trouble and get busted out. In Athens the channel to shore is a zig-zag from the anchorage point. When the officer on the Captain's Gig asked boat's why he was taking such an irregular course and did not like his response, he give him a direct order to make a straight line to the ship. The Captain's Gig ran ground on the reef and bent the shaft and the sailors walked across the reef back to shore. I had told this particular officer that he would not last a year and I'd be on the deck to salute him when he got busted out. Two week's later that officer was brought up on charges, was busted, drummed out and I saluted him as he was escorted off the ship. So respond to the argument, sire, and don't throw your rank around like it suddenly makes you more creditable or knowledgeable, because it doesn't.

 

[maineman]

No, I will not tell you my rating. It has nothing to do with the merits of my argument, sir. Either respond to the issues or don't, but just because you were an officer does not mean you know squat about American military history. I saw my share of officers who arrogantly thought that they knew it all, only to get in trouble and get busted out. In Athens the channel to shore is a zig-zag from the anchorage point. When the officer on the Captain's Gig asked boat's why he was taking such an irregular course and did not like his response, he give him a direct order to make a straight line to the ship. The Captain's Gig ran ground on the reef and bent the shaft and the sailors walked across the reef back to shore. I had told this particular officer that he would not last a year and I'd be on the deck to salute him when he got busted out. Two week's later that officer was brought up on charges, was busted, drummed out and I saluted him as he was escorted off the ship. So respond to the argument, sire, and don't throw your rank around like it suddenly makes you more creditable or knowledgeable, because it doesn't.

in the post of mine that you quoted, you missed this part:

"go back and re-read my post. You seemed to have missed the second half."

I did respond. my rank has nothing to do with it....your apparently selective reading does.

And thanks for reminding me about the goofy anchorage in Piraeus.... it brings back fond memories.