If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
F-15 Breakup Animation & video
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...gop_field.html Rudy's Historic Rewrite Giuliani falsely blamed President Clinton for cuts in the military that happened mostly under a Republican administration: Giuliani: Bill Clinton cut the military drastically. It's called the peace dividend, one of those nice-sounding phrases, very devastating. It was a 25, 30 percent cut in the military. President Bush has never made up for that. We – our Army had been at 725,000; it's down to 500,000. Actually, most of the cutting to which Giuliani refers occurred during the administration of George H.W. Bush. At the end of fiscal year 1993 http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/Hst0993.pdf (which was Bush’s last one in office), the Army had 572,423 active-duty soldiers – a far cry from 725,000. In fact, to get to that number, one has to go back to 1990 http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/Hst0990.pdf, during the first gulf war. Moreover, Clinton’s cuts in the military, while large, were nowhere close to 25 percent to 30 percent. Between 1993 and 2001 http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/M05/hst0901.pdf, the Army went from 572,423 to 480,801, which is a decline of 16 percent. The entire military went from 1,705,103 to 1,385,116, a decrease of 18.8 percent. Compare that with the far larger cuts made during the first Bush administration: In 1989 http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/Hst0989.pdf, the military stood at 2,130,229 and the Army had 769,741 soldiers. By 1993, those numbers had declined by 19.9 percent and 25.6 percent, respectively. And as we’ve pointed out before http://www.factcheck.org/more_mitt_missteps.html, it was the first Bush administration – specifically then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney – that began bragging openly of the peace dividend. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
F-15 Breakup Animation & video
"LWG" wrote in message . .. Only if you are a liar or a thief. Then Congress is comprised of liars and thieves. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
F-15 Breakup Animation & video
wrote in message . net... http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...gop_field.html Rudy's Historic Rewrite Giuliani falsely blamed President Clinton for cuts in the military that happened mostly under a Republican administration: Giuliani: Bill Clinton cut the military drastically. It's called the peace dividend, one of those nice-sounding phrases, very devastating. It was a 25, 30 percent cut in the military. President Bush has never made up for that. We - our Army had been at 725,000; it's down to 500,000. Actually, most of the cutting to which Giuliani refers occurred during the administration of George H.W. Bush. At the end of fiscal year 1993 http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/Hst0993.pdf (which was Bush's last one in office), the Army had 572,423 active-duty soldiers - a far cry from 725,000. In fact, to get to that number, one has to go back to 1990 http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/Hst0990.pdf, during the first gulf war. Moreover, Clinton's cuts in the military, while large, were nowhere close to 25 percent to 30 percent. Between 1993 and 2001 http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/M05/hst0901.pdf, the Army went from 572,423 to 480,801, which is a decline of 16 percent. The entire military went from 1,705,103 to 1,385,116, a decrease of 18.8 percent. Compare that with the far larger cuts made during the first Bush administration: In 1989 http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/Hst0989.pdf, the military stood at 2,130,229 and the Army had 769,741 soldiers. By 1993, those numbers had declined by 19.9 percent and 25.6 percent, respectively. And as we've pointed out before http://www.factcheck.org/more_mitt_missteps.html, it was the first Bush administration - specifically then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney - that began bragging openly of the peace dividend. Right. The first Bush administration reduced defense to a level appropriate to a post-Cold War world. The Clinton administration reduced defense below that level. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
F-15 Breakup Animation & video
On Jan 14, 12:01*pm, "Dennis Johnson" wrote:
I'm not sure it makes sense to continue putting money into warplanes that have pilots on board.... I would like to see the billions of dollars spent on an F-22 roll-out and for an F-35 design to be spent on developing uncrewed warplanes instead. *I think this trend is inevitable, it's only a question of when.. The Air Force has already started down that road, albeit slowly and tentatively: they've recently admitted that UAV's have been more extensively used for combat sorties than USAF leaders had let on and some recent graduates of pilot training have been assiged to UAV's. That second move is controversial inside and outside the USAF: some argue that pilots are not the best choices for a kind of operation fundamentally different from in-the-cockpit flying. If the most suitable type of individual is at all like a certain chair-flier on these forums, then I'm glad I'm retired. Fighter jocks were hard enough to take... |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
F-15 Breakup Animation & video
"Dennis Johnson" wrote in message . .. "Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:FoKij.35256$Ux2.29488@attbi_s22... I hope this means accelerated funding and deployment of the F-22 and F-35, but I fear otherwise. I'm not sure it makes sense to continue putting money into warplanes that have pilots on board. There are huge disadvantages to carrying a person. The airplane must have redundant systems for safety and reliability, and often those redundant systems also have backup systems. The weight penalty for the life support systems, including the cockpit, ejection seat, and pressurization system are considerable. The potential acceleration of the airplane must be greatly reduced due to the frailty of the human on board. Air power is one thing, sea power is another. Apparently Japan has a larger navy than the brits! http://www.janes.com/news/defence/na...1217_1_n.shtml |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
F-15 Breakup Animation & video
On 14-Jan-2008, "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: Right. The first Bush administration reduced defense to a level appropriate to a post-Cold War world. The Clinton administration reduced defense below that level. Careful, your bias is showing. Scott Wilson |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
F-15 Breakup Animation & video
wrote in message . net... Careful, your bias is showing. Can't, I have none. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
F-15 Breakup Animation & video
On 14-Jan-2008, "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: Can't, I have none. Oh please. I once talked to a Green Bay controller who knows you, and he said you are about as far right-wing as they come, implied you're almost looney about it. Stuff I've seen you post in the past confirmed it. Scott Wilson |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
F-15 Breakup Animation & video
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: Careful, your bias is showing. Can't, I have none. Nor have I. I am a Fair and Balanced guy. I know it's true because I believe it, and since I am without bias, I must be right. -- Dan T-182T at BFM |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
F-15 Breakup Animation & video
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Video from VMC to IMC | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 2 | December 22nd 07 12:50 AM |
Kiwi! Cool animation | Buck Murdock | General Aviation | 1 | February 9th 07 02:41 PM |
Terrafugia animation | Mike Noel | Owning | 4 | January 8th 07 12:50 AM |
VIDEO: Frecce Tricolore collides over Ramstein - a new head on video | Montblack | Piloting | 1 | February 12th 05 04:03 AM |
RC F-14 video | Yeff | Naval Aviation | 4 | November 1st 04 08:46 PM |