English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Clinton closed the half deserted bases to cut the budget and redeployed the forces.

2007-07-15 12:39:52 · 9 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government Politics

Terry D (below) Who is blaming Clinton for anything?

Reading with comprehension is fundemental.
`

2007-07-15 12:46:23 · update #1

nicolasraage (below) The bases were ALREADY sparcely populated. The damage had allready been incurred to the nearby cities by the loss of personel.

2007-07-15 12:47:52 · update #2

Caninelegion (below) Reagan's 6% gdp went to Ratheon and the like for the hoax on America called Star Wars program. It had nothing to do with military personell. So much for the numbers game...

2007-07-15 13:00:47 · update #3

9 answers

Reagan = 6% GDP = DOD
HW Bush = 4% GDP = DOD
Clinton = 2% GDP = DOD
Bush II = 4% GDP = DOD

lowest GDP since beginning of WWII = 2%

The answer is clear and it has nothing to do with early out. The Reagan administration started the drawdown at a low level and HW Bush accelerated it. Early out simply was an attempt to allow some shrinkage without having to resort to the RIFs used handily during the Clinton's war on the military.

2007-07-15 12:57:07 · answer #1 · answered by Caninelegion 7 · 2 1

Many of these bases that came up for proposed closings were not sparsely populated and came close to being closed. In fact, the economy in many areas paid high prices, as a result. I know this for a fact, because I happen to live within 25 miles of one and know what we go through in this area every time a base is up for reviewable with the possibility of being closed down. The impact is immense!!!!

Now then, being a conservative, I don't disagree with what they did (even if it would have hit me in the pocketbook). Consolidation actually made us stronger and saved time and money. Although the feds quickly spent that and much more in other ways.

2007-07-15 12:58:48 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

If they bothered to do their research, they would realize that clinton just cleaned up some wasteful spending, and shifted some of the military budget to covert anti-terror defense, and counter terrorist intelligence, which most people in the military wouldn't even witness.
they would also see that Clinton called the republican majority's anti-terrorist legislation too weak.
They would also note this:
http://www.dod.mil/execsec/adr95/budget_5.html

comparing defense budget in relation to GDP is misleading considering the GDP changes, which would reflect a smaller precentage if the GDP jumped and the defense spending didn't jump just as much.

2007-07-15 12:53:45 · answer #3 · answered by avail_skillz 7 · 0 1

i'm now confident you're youthful than i theory. I belonged to a rustic huge team of regulation enforcement officers that accrued 9mm ammo for the militia to coach with. Clinton decimated the militia. they did no longer even have prepare ammo. He a great deal decreased the quantity of battalions to the place we could no longer preserve ourselves. there became no air craft service interior the Pacific below him. Pilots left the service in droves because of the fact he had shrink the money for spare areas for our planes. I study human beings asserting our troops are no longer being paid properly or on nutrition stamps now. whilst in comparison with what Clinton did they seem to be a lot extra useful off. He intentionally below minded ethical along with his rules and people who he put in the Pentagon and promoted whilst they weren't qualified. below Clinton the money have been taken away to maintain and shop up base housing. His own words have been he hated the militia. extra. you want to talk approximately what he did to Federal regulation Enforcement. For starters he decimated the D.E.A. and refused John Sullivan, the FBI agent that became getting to the backside of the Cole bombing and died interior the Towers on 9-11, to return to Yemen whilst he became making great strides with the Yemen government

2016-10-03 21:29:55 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

No they will not. Clinton cut other places and gave China some of our Military contrats (Cloths,shoes) to China putting many out of a job in North carolina. The equiptment were terrible in 1997 When My son was stationed at Ft.Bragg. That was before Bush and Clinton had been in office long enough to do something about it.

2007-07-15 12:48:37 · answer #5 · answered by ♥ Mel 7 · 2 2

I was in the military during Reagan's term and I remember the military was just looking for excuses to get people to leave. I always thought it was strange when people said that Reagan built up the military. I don't remember it being that way.

2007-07-15 12:48:19 · answer #6 · answered by Gemini 5 · 1 1

what did closing those bases do for the economy of the cities they were in? How many businesses went out of business, creating less tax revenue for the government?

It's a cycle. Take a basic economics course before you try to bring half facts to the table to prove blind allegations.

2007-07-15 12:46:15 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

that was 8 years ago and nothing is the same as it was 4 years ago. that is history and doesn't apply today.
How long can you blame clinton for the problems in the world?
Get on with your life.

2007-07-15 12:44:07 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

they want the military privatized so they can run drugs and conduct illegal activities.

check out "black water" - the large mercenary military group in history - funded by the USA.

2007-07-15 12:44:49 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

fedest.com, questions and answers