Quote:
|
Secondly, what planet do you live on?
|
The same planet one you live on.
My disseration was 195 pages comparing the expenditures on defense from administration. Your thoughts on the matter like many others focuses on defense spending solely in relation to soldiers, tanks etc. Bush and Clinton defense numbers were not that different ulitmately. The funds were used differntly. There was not a slashing going on as you describe it.
Did it occur to you that he is raising the standard because everyone wants out? No one wants to enlist? Numbers have gone to shit?
You talk about people wanting out when Clinton was there because the pay sucked? On pay that sucked, Clinton was able to retain at a better pace than the one or Pres. is on.
By the way, thanks for serving. I respect the men and women in the armed forces. I agree with you that they deserve more. I just get aggravated when people say Clinton cut defense and military. It's just not true. It's like the budget surplus. It was easy to call a surplus when it never was. The Slashing appears that way when it really wasn't.
Deployment was up... Mostly on peacekeeping missions in conjunction with the U.N. in most cases during Clinton's time. They are much more thinly spread now, and much more active.
I have friends that are still active in the military who said the difference between being deployed, and sent to your death in a conflict make for vastly different circumstances.
P.S.
I used to teach poly sci