$174,000 for 113 Days Work. Good Gig If You Can Get It.

[rightwinger]

Despite having a military that was slow and heavy thanks to Reagan. Right?

You prove a little knowledge is a ridiculous thing.

Post Reagan and post Cold War we found that our military was too slow and heavy

It took too long to emplace our Division based units to remote locations. It was both a doctrinal and logistics issue. We could not get effective fighting forces in place rapidly to meet immediate threats.

Desert Storm was a good turning point. It took an exceptionally long time to deploy our heavy forces to Saudi Arabia but once we did we executed a swift "Hail Mary" attack emphasizing maneuver over controlling territory

After Desert Storm we changed our doctrine to lighter forces. Stryker Brigades rather than heavy tanks. Brigade centered combat teams over Divisions

Uh huh... right

The Reagan era started the change from the out of date military setup, maintenance, and practices that were a result of the negligence after Vietnam

You know nothing about what the military was like in those years.. and you can see, by the things that were brought out during desert shield and desert storm (things that did not just pop into existence after Reagan left office), the vast improvement over what we had not 10 years prior

You sir, are an idiot and you do not know what you are talking about

Don't look at me ...I only work in a sewer

In the 1980s, Regans approach was throw as much military stuff as you could against the wall and see what sticks. There wasn't a military expenditure Reagan didn't support

But his doctrine was flawed. Reagan and his generals still looked at Cold War solutions. Heavy forces, 600 ship Navy, nuclear strategic deterrence, Star Wars

Towards the end of his term, Reagan advocated complete nuclear disarmament which put us on the right path. But he was ill prepared for the emerging threats in the middle east and post cold war world

 

[The Rabbi]

Post Reagan and post Cold War we found that our military was too slow and heavy

It took too long to emplace our Division based units to remote locations. It was both a doctrinal and logistics issue. We could not get effective fighting forces in place rapidly to meet immediate threats.

Desert Storm was a good turning point. It took an exceptionally long time to deploy our heavy forces to Saudi Arabia but once we did we executed a swift "Hail Mary" attack emphasizing maneuver over controlling territory

After Desert Storm we changed our doctrine to lighter forces. Stryker Brigades rather than heavy tanks. Brigade centered combat teams over Divisions

Uh huh... right

The Reagan era started the change from the out of date military setup, maintenance, and practices that were a result of the negligence after Vietnam

You know nothing about what the military was like in those years.. and you can see, by the things that were brought out during desert shield and desert storm (things that did not just pop into existence after Reagan left office), the vast improvement over what we had not 10 years prior

You sir, are an idiot and you do not know what you are talking about

Don't look at me ...I only work in a sewer

In the 1980s, Regans approach was throw as much military stuff as you could against the wall and see what sticks. There wasn't a military expenditure Reagan didn't support

But his doctrine was flawed. Reagan and his generals still looked at Cold War solutions. Heavy forces, 600 ship Navy, nuclear strategic deterrence, Star Wars

Towards the end of his term, Reagan advocated complete nuclear disarmament which put us on the right path. But he was ill prepared for the emerging threats in the middle east and post cold war world

He was facing an equally heavy Soviet military. Or did you forget that part?

 

[rightwinger]

Uh huh... right

The Reagan era started the change from the out of date military setup, maintenance, and practices that were a result of the negligence after Vietnam

You know nothing about what the military was like in those years.. and you can see, by the things that were brought out during desert shield and desert storm (things that did not just pop into existence after Reagan left office), the vast improvement over what we had not 10 years prior

You sir, are an idiot and you do not know what you are talking about

Don't look at me ...I only work in a sewer

In the 1980s, Regans approach was throw as much military stuff as you could against the wall and see what sticks. There wasn't a military expenditure Reagan didn't support

But his doctrine was flawed. Reagan and his generals still looked at Cold War solutions. Heavy forces, 600 ship Navy, nuclear strategic deterrence, Star Wars

Towards the end of his term, Reagan advocated complete nuclear disarmament which put us on the right path. But he was ill prepared for the emerging threats in the middle east and post cold war world

He was facing an equally heavy Soviet military. Or did you forget that part?

Actually, he wasn't

Reagan spent money on the military just for the sake of spending money. He did build them up, but much of what he did had to be redone because it was from an obsolete military doctrine

 

[Redfish]

Don't look at me ...I only work in a sewer

In the 1980s, Regans approach was throw as much military stuff as you could against the wall and see what sticks. There wasn't a military expenditure Reagan didn't support

But his doctrine was flawed. Reagan and his generals still looked at Cold War solutions. Heavy forces, 600 ship Navy, nuclear strategic deterrence, Star Wars

Towards the end of his term, Reagan advocated complete nuclear disarmament which put us on the right path. But he was ill prepared for the emerging threats in the middle east and post cold war world

He was facing an equally heavy Soviet military. Or did you forget that part?

Actually, he wasn't

Reagan spent money on the military just for the sake of spending money. He did build them up, but much of what he did had to be redone because it was from an obsolete military doctrine

both parties in congress authorized and funded that build up. No president has the power to do that on his own.

Also, lets not forget that military spending creates millions of good paying American blue collar jobs.

 

[DiamondDave]

Post Reagan and post Cold War we found that our military was too slow and heavy

It took too long to emplace our Division based units to remote locations. It was both a doctrinal and logistics issue. We could not get effective fighting forces in place rapidly to meet immediate threats.

Desert Storm was a good turning point. It took an exceptionally long time to deploy our heavy forces to Saudi Arabia but once we did we executed a swift "Hail Mary" attack emphasizing maneuver over controlling territory

After Desert Storm we changed our doctrine to lighter forces. Stryker Brigades rather than heavy tanks. Brigade centered combat teams over Divisions

Uh huh... right

The Reagan era started the change from the out of date military setup, maintenance, and practices that were a result of the negligence after Vietnam

You know nothing about what the military was like in those years.. and you can see, by the things that were brought out during desert shield and desert storm (things that did not just pop into existence after Reagan left office), the vast improvement over what we had not 10 years prior

You sir, are an idiot and you do not know what you are talking about

Don't look at me ...I only work in a sewer

In the 1980s, Regans approach was throw as much military stuff as you could against the wall and see what sticks. There wasn't a military expenditure Reagan didn't support

But his doctrine was flawed. Reagan and his generals still looked at Cold War solutions. Heavy forces, 600 ship Navy, nuclear strategic deterrence, Star Wars

Towards the end of his term, Reagan advocated complete nuclear disarmament which put us on the right path. But he was ill prepared for the emerging threats in the middle east and post cold war world

Actually.. you are pretty much wrong on all of your assumptions.. did everything that was put into action work?? Nope.. never does... but what we saw happen in the 80's was drastically different than what we saw in post Vietnam in the 70's under Ford and Carter... Reagan was focused on the enemy at hand.. terrorism was not that enemy.. but the improvement to equipment, training, personnel, deployment, etc was exactly opposite to the 'slow' description you want to so easily place upon it.. and I know.. I was in at the very end of Reagan's time and my family members were in for the majority, if not all of Reagan's time and before...

You know exactly nothing on the subject... you are simply trying to claim some knowledge and expertise or even understanding on something you know zero about

 

[DiamondDave]

Don't look at me ...I only work in a sewer

In the 1980s, Regans approach was throw as much military stuff as you could against the wall and see what sticks. There wasn't a military expenditure Reagan didn't support

But his doctrine was flawed. Reagan and his generals still looked at Cold War solutions. Heavy forces, 600 ship Navy, nuclear strategic deterrence, Star Wars

Towards the end of his term, Reagan advocated complete nuclear disarmament which put us on the right path. But he was ill prepared for the emerging threats in the middle east and post cold war world

He was facing an equally heavy Soviet military. Or did you forget that part?

Actually, he wasn't

Reagan spent money on the military just for the sake of spending money. He did build them up, but much of what he did had to be redone because it was from an obsolete military doctrine

Flat out lie

 

[Redfish]

Uh huh... right

The Reagan era started the change from the out of date military setup, maintenance, and practices that were a result of the negligence after Vietnam

You know nothing about what the military was like in those years.. and you can see, by the things that were brought out during desert shield and desert storm (things that did not just pop into existence after Reagan left office), the vast improvement over what we had not 10 years prior

You sir, are an idiot and you do not know what you are talking about

Don't look at me ...I only work in a sewer

In the 1980s, Regans approach was throw as much military stuff as you could against the wall and see what sticks. There wasn't a military expenditure Reagan didn't support

But his doctrine was flawed. Reagan and his generals still looked at Cold War solutions. Heavy forces, 600 ship Navy, nuclear strategic deterrence, Star Wars

Towards the end of his term, Reagan advocated complete nuclear disarmament which put us on the right path. But he was ill prepared for the emerging threats in the middle east and post cold war world

Actually.. you are pretty much wrong on all of your assumptions.. did everything that was put into action work?? Nope.. never does... but what we saw happen in the 80's was drastically different than what we saw in post Vietnam in the 70's under Ford and Carter... Reagan was focused on the enemy at hand.. terrorism was not that enemy.. but the improvement to equipment, training, personnel, deployment, etc was exactly opposite to the 'slow' description you want to so easily place upon it.. and I know.. I was in at the very end of Reagan's time and my family members were in for the majority, if not all of Reagan's time and before...

You know exactly nothing on the subject... you are simply trying to claim some knowledge and expertise or even understanding on something you know zero about

RW is a liberal, that is to be expected from them.

 

[bripat9643]

Don't look at me ...I only work in a sewer

In the 1980s, Regans approach was throw as much military stuff as you could against the wall and see what sticks. There wasn't a military expenditure Reagan didn't support

But his doctrine was flawed. Reagan and his generals still looked at Cold War solutions. Heavy forces, 600 ship Navy, nuclear strategic deterrence, Star Wars

Towards the end of his term, Reagan advocated complete nuclear disarmament which put us on the right path. But he was ill prepared for the emerging threats in the middle east and post cold war world

He was facing an equally heavy Soviet military. Or did you forget that part?

Actually, he wasn't

Reagan spent money on the military just for the sake of spending money. He did build them up, but much of what he did had to be redone because it was from an obsolete military doctrine

Only an idiot would believe Reagan built up the military just for the heck of it. That claim is so stupid it defies comprehension.

You're a ******* moron who doesn't know the slightest thing about military doctrine. Reagan was fighting a cold war, if you don't recall, so a "cold war doctrine" was entirely appropriate. However, the force he built is what allowed Bush Sr. to shellack Saddam in the First Iraq War and allowed Bush Jr. to shellack him in the Second Iraq War.

You claim what Reagan did had to be "redone?"

Which parts?

 

[rightwinger]

Uh huh... right

The Reagan era started the change from the out of date military setup, maintenance, and practices that were a result of the negligence after Vietnam

You know nothing about what the military was like in those years.. and you can see, by the things that were brought out during desert shield and desert storm (things that did not just pop into existence after Reagan left office), the vast improvement over what we had not 10 years prior

You sir, are an idiot and you do not know what you are talking about

Don't look at me ...I only work in a sewer

In the 1980s, Regans approach was throw as much military stuff as you could against the wall and see what sticks. There wasn't a military expenditure Reagan didn't support

But his doctrine was flawed. Reagan and his generals still looked at Cold War solutions. Heavy forces, 600 ship Navy, nuclear strategic deterrence, Star Wars

Towards the end of his term, Reagan advocated complete nuclear disarmament which put us on the right path. But he was ill prepared for the emerging threats in the middle east and post cold war world

Actually.. you are pretty much wrong on all of your assumptions.. did everything that was put into action work?? Nope.. never does... but what we saw happen in the 80's was drastically different than what we saw in post Vietnam in the 70's under Ford and Carter... Reagan was focused on the enemy at hand.. terrorism was not that enemy.. but the improvement to equipment, training, personnel, deployment, etc was exactly opposite to the 'slow' description you want to so easily place upon it.. and I know.. I was in at the very end of Reagan's time and my family members were in for the majority, if not all of Reagan's time and before...

You know exactly nothing on the subject... you are simply trying to claim some knowledge and expertise or even understanding on something you know zero about

As a sewer worker, I know quite a bit on the subject

Carter and Ford de-escallated the military build up. VietNam was over and America was sick of war.

Reagan just threw money at the Military. Anything they came up with, he approved. It was spending money for moneys sake. Reagans focus was on building a Cold War Army and Star Wars. As it turns out, we ended up replacing much of what he bought

Military Doctrine changed when Reagan left office, it had to

 

[rightwinger]

He was facing an equally heavy Soviet military. Or did you forget that part?

Actually, he wasn't

Reagan spent money on the military just for the sake of spending money. He did build them up, but much of what he did had to be redone because it was from an obsolete military doctrine

Flat out lie

History proved you wrong

The Soviet Military machine turned out to be a paper tiger. Bloated, obsolete with piss poor morale. The Soviet stregth was exaggerated by the military industrial complex to ensure the money kept flowing.......the actual threat was nowhere close

 

[Spoonman]

The Cold War strategy involved defending the Fulda Gap at all costs. Our forces were massed in Germany to defend against a Soviet invasion forces. Tactics and command and control were centered at the Division level with Bde and Battalion tied to the Division
In the late 80s we changed to autonomous Bde forces that were more maneuverable

Despite having a military that was slow and heavy thanks to Reagan. Right?

You prove a little knowledge is a ridiculous thing.

Post Reagan and post Cold War we found that our military was too slow and heavy

It took too long to emplace our Division based units to remote locations. It was both a doctrinal and logistics issue. We could not get effective fighting forces in place rapidly to meet immediate threats.

Desert Storm was a good turning point. It took an exceptionally long time to deploy our heavy forces to Saudi Arabia but once we did we executed a swift "Hail Mary" attack emphasizing maneuver over controlling territory

After Desert Storm we changed our doctrine to lighter forces. Stryker Brigades rather than heavy tanks. Brigade centered combat teams over Divisions

but in all cases we remained ahead of the curve. and the reason was we invest in our military and in improving militarty technology. now if we listen to democrats and cut out military budget we both. lose that edge and lose a ton of jobs. even obama has been smart enough to know that is a core reason his economy is holding up at all

 

[DiamondDave]

Don't look at me ...I only work in a sewer

In the 1980s, Regans approach was throw as much military stuff as you could against the wall and see what sticks. There wasn't a military expenditure Reagan didn't support

But his doctrine was flawed. Reagan and his generals still looked at Cold War solutions. Heavy forces, 600 ship Navy, nuclear strategic deterrence, Star Wars

Towards the end of his term, Reagan advocated complete nuclear disarmament which put us on the right path. But he was ill prepared for the emerging threats in the middle east and post cold war world

Actually.. you are pretty much wrong on all of your assumptions.. did everything that was put into action work?? Nope.. never does... but what we saw happen in the 80's was drastically different than what we saw in post Vietnam in the 70's under Ford and Carter... Reagan was focused on the enemy at hand.. terrorism was not that enemy.. but the improvement to equipment, training, personnel, deployment, etc was exactly opposite to the 'slow' description you want to so easily place upon it.. and I know.. I was in at the very end of Reagan's time and my family members were in for the majority, if not all of Reagan's time and before...

You know exactly nothing on the subject... you are simply trying to claim some knowledge and expertise or even understanding on something you know zero about

As a sewer worker, I know quite a bit on the subject

Carter and Ford de-escallated the military build up. VietNam was over and America was sick of war.

Reagan just threw money at the Military. Anything they came up with, he approved. It was spending money for moneys sake. Reagans focus was on building a Cold War Army and Star Wars. As it turns out, we ended up replacing much of what he bought

Military Doctrine changed when Reagan left office, it had to

Actually.. you assume to know

Being 'sick of war' does not eliminate the need to keep your military up to date, moving to the future, and well maintained

Reagan did not just throw money at it.. the projects, advancements, and revamping led directly to the improvements we utilized in Desert Shield and Desert Storm

Military strategy and tactic in various times take various forms, and each engagement is different.. so of course the approach to how we fought in Kuwait was different than how we did other things.. but the buildup and improvements under Reagan allowed us to be as successful as we were... and we kicked butt while you say around doing nothing

You are ignornat on this subject, and it shows

 

[DiamondDave]

Actually, he wasn't

Reagan spent money on the military just for the sake of spending money. He did build them up, but much of what he did had to be redone because it was from an obsolete military doctrine

Flat out lie

History proved you wrong

The Soviet Military machine turned out to be a paper tiger. Bloated, obsolete with piss poor morale. The Soviet stregth was exaggerated by the military industrial complex to ensure the money kept flowing.......the actual threat was nowhere close

No.. it has not.. you keep stating it, which does not make it so

Soviets were far from a paper tiger.. it was their leftist economic model that put them under, trying to keep up with the vast improvements we were doing.. that in combination with the citizenry having dissent

Their military might was still something to be feared.. and was, in many ways superior to ours, though lacking in others.. their technology, training, and capabilities were nothing to sneeze at

You are so goddamn ignorant

 

[rightwinger]

Despite having a military that was slow and heavy thanks to Reagan. Right?

You prove a little knowledge is a ridiculous thing.

Post Reagan and post Cold War we found that our military was too slow and heavy

It took too long to emplace our Division based units to remote locations. It was both a doctrinal and logistics issue. We could not get effective fighting forces in place rapidly to meet immediate threats.

Desert Storm was a good turning point. It took an exceptionally long time to deploy our heavy forces to Saudi Arabia but once we did we executed a swift "Hail Mary" attack emphasizing maneuver over controlling territory

After Desert Storm we changed our doctrine to lighter forces. Stryker Brigades rather than heavy tanks. Brigade centered combat teams over Divisions

but in all cases we remained ahead of the curve. and the reason was we invest in our military and in improving militarty technology. now if we listen to democrats and cut out military budget we both. lose that edge and lose a ton of jobs. even obama has been smart enough to know that is a core reason his economy is holding up at all

We have the most powerful military force in the history of mankind and you can thank both Democrats and Republicans....neither is willing to cut the military

 

[rightwinger]

Flat out lie

History proved you wrong

The Soviet Military machine turned out to be a paper tiger. Bloated, obsolete with piss poor morale. The Soviet stregth was exaggerated by the military industrial complex to ensure the money kept flowing.......the actual threat was nowhere close

No.. it has not.. you keep stating it, which does not make it so

Soviets were far from a paper tiger.. it was their leftist economic model that put them under, trying to keep up with the vast improvements we were doing.. that in combination with the citizenry having dissent

Their military might was still something to be feared.. and was, in many ways superior to ours, though lacking in others.. their technology, training, and capabilities were nothing to sneeze at

You are so goddamn ignorant

Oh please....don't even go there

The Soviet Military was a mess and we knew it

We continued to build them up as a mighty Cold War adversary to keep the money flowing. After the collapse of the Soviet Union it became obvious to everyone how weak they really were....obsolete, poor maintenance, poor readiness, poor training and horrible morale

Stop making things up as you go along

 

[Mathbud1]

The military was responsible for only 1/4 of the budget increases. Furthermore, before Reagan, military spending had been declining for over a decade.

Lest we forget that Ford and Carter slashed the military to the detriment of our armed forces, who were woefully under-trained, under-supplied, and handed inadequate equipment during that time.. there was much that had to be revamped in the military because of the years it was not allowed to advance and improve

But wrongwinger has no interest in truth

Post Vietnam we had the wrong armed forces trained to fight the wrong war. Doctrine was wrong as was the equipment.

Then wouldn't you need to invest more to train them correctly and spend money to replace that wrong equipment with the right equipment?

 

[rightwinger]

Lest we forget that Ford and Carter slashed the military to the detriment of our armed forces, who were woefully under-trained, under-supplied, and handed inadequate equipment during that time.. there was much that had to be revamped in the military because of the years it was not allowed to advance and improve

But wrongwinger has no interest in truth

Post Vietnam we had the wrong armed forces trained to fight the wrong war. Doctrine was wrong as was the equipment.

Then wouldn't you need to invest more to train them correctly and spend money to replace that wrong equipment with the right equipment?

There was never a time in US history when the military was held in lower regard than the post-VietNam years.

The American people had had it with the military and blamed them for the war. Neither Ford nor Carter were going to get anywhere with a push to rebuild the military

 

[Redfish]

Post Vietnam we had the wrong armed forces trained to fight the wrong war. Doctrine was wrong as was the equipment.

Then wouldn't you need to invest more to train them correctly and spend money to replace that wrong equipment with the right equipment?

There was never a time in US history when the military was held in lower regard than the post-VietNam years.

The American people had had it with the military and blamed them for the war. Neither Ford nor Carter were going to get anywhere with a push to rebuild the military

That was because a vast majority of americans did not support the stupid waste of lives and money known as the viet nam war.

the military members were the victims of a stupid policy of Kennedy and Johnson.

 

[DiamondDave]

History proved you wrong

The Soviet Military machine turned out to be a paper tiger. Bloated, obsolete with piss poor morale. The Soviet stregth was exaggerated by the military industrial complex to ensure the money kept flowing.......the actual threat was nowhere close

No.. it has not.. you keep stating it, which does not make it so

Soviets were far from a paper tiger.. it was their leftist economic model that put them under, trying to keep up with the vast improvements we were doing.. that in combination with the citizenry having dissent

Their military might was still something to be feared.. and was, in many ways superior to ours, though lacking in others.. their technology, training, and capabilities were nothing to sneeze at

You are so goddamn ignorant

Oh please....don't even go there

The Soviet Military was a mess and we knew it

We continued to build them up as a mighty Cold War adversary to keep the money flowing. After the collapse of the Soviet Union it became obvious to everyone how weak they really were....obsolete, poor maintenance, poor readiness, poor training and horrible morale

Stop making things up as you go along

Oh please.. you are so far out of your knowledge base, you are not even funny anymore

Their equipment, in many cases, was superior to our own.. in some cases, not so much.. while we like to believe, person for person, we were superior, and had a slight (and I do mean slight) advantage in some technology, they had just as good of training, more boots, and vast supply.. their military was far from being in shambles... they were far from obsolete.. and while their morale as a group was not all that (as the whole country was suffering because of totalitarian leftist rule), their units were trained and more than capable of high level combat

YOU are the one who is talking out of your ass, and making shit up...

And yes, I even trained with some long time Russian military folks after we opened up such opportunities with them in later years... I have seen their older and newer technology at the time, I had seen the results of their training, I had seen their effectiveness... and you, dear madam, are a talk-out-your-ass-pansyboy-idiot

 

[rightwinger]

No.. it has not.. you keep stating it, which does not make it so

Soviets were far from a paper tiger.. it was their leftist economic model that put them under, trying to keep up with the vast improvements we were doing.. that in combination with the citizenry having dissent

Their military might was still something to be feared.. and was, in many ways superior to ours, though lacking in others.. their technology, training, and capabilities were nothing to sneeze at

You are so goddamn ignorant

Oh please....don't even go there

The Soviet Military was a mess and we knew it

We continued to build them up as a mighty Cold War adversary to keep the money flowing. After the collapse of the Soviet Union it became obvious to everyone how weak they really were....obsolete, poor maintenance, poor readiness, poor training and horrible morale

Stop making things up as you go along

Oh please.. you are so far out of your knowledge base, you are not even funny anymore

Their equipment, in many cases, was superior to our own.. in some cases, not so much.. while we like to believe, person for person, we were superior, and had a slight (and I do mean slight) advantage in some technology, they had just as good of training, more boots, and vast supply.. their military was far from being in shambles... they were far from obsolete.. and while their morale as a group was not all that (as the whole country was suffering because of totalitarian leftist rule), their units were trained and more than capable of high level combat

YOU are the one who is talking out of your ass, and making shit up...

And yes, I even trained with some long time Russian military folks after we opened up such opportunities with them in later years... I have seen their older and newer technology at the time, I had seen the results of their training, I had seen their effectiveness... and you, dear madam, are a talk-out-your-ass-pansyboy-idiot

Listen Comrade..

I know you have to stand up for the Soviet Military strength....but history has proved you embarassingly wrong