HOW MUCH does it cost to supply the US military with armored vehicles, protective gear...?

Question

HOW MUCH does it cost to supply the US military with armored vehicles, protective gear, armored helicopters, etc.?

The military budget was cut back so much by the Clinton administration's 8 years in office it's amazing our ARMED FORCES even had a chance to fight for their lives - let alone for their own country.

Can you imagine how much it could have saved George W. Bush from having to spend upgrading our military from that hapless existence?

Honestly, what are the numbers to get our military ON TRACK with weapons instead of playing catch-up from being financially pillaged by the Clinton administration?

COULD FEWER U.S. SOLDIERS DIED? Well of course!

Does anyone care to add up and account for how many billions of dollars Clinton cut from his budget and how many billions Bush had to shell out just to get caught up?

Why is this something the liberals conveniently IGNORE when it comes to BLAMING who caused so many US deaths?

To the top dupes who site my point-blank proof on Clinton deserting military funding:
Then why the hell did 95% of the democrat party approved IMMEDIATE spending on armor for all vehicles - AND included funds for ALL FUTURE VEHICLES to have the same armor BEFORE being sent out for military duty?

You say Clinton vied for peace?
Operation Desert Fox* - Bombing Iraq
Operation Allied Force* - Bombing Yugoslavia
*In both cases our military was so ineffective they might as well have not even been involved.

Answer 1

You will not get any true liberal to admit that Clinton Military budgets cuts were high, true figures range at about a 36% cut from the build up in the 1980's.

Also another figure from those cuts is under Clinton the average pay gap between a service-members pay to the civilian sector averaged 13 - 15%. Today it is at 4%

Answer 2

The cost is irrelevant, it is their required equipment.

I am not a Clinton fan at all, but I must point out that he did not cut and military funding for salaries, TOE (required equipment) or downsize the military. In fact most of the base closures and contracts ended under Bush Sr.

Adding armor to vehicles that were never built for armoring is expensive and unexpected result of the unique new battlefield we are on, while it could have been theorized that this type of war would erupt, without proof the CONGRESS would not approve the funding.

It is just a fact of battle, no one needed tanks till the Germans MkI came across the trenches in WWI. It is a game of catch up.

It has never been necessary, in the past, to equip support personnel with ballistic armor or armored cars, so now it is catch up time.

One other point Combat Helicopters are armored, Unfortunately BUSH cut the Comanche off so our uber-copter is now next gen and wont be on the battle field till the war with Iran.

Answer 3

Clinton configured the armed services for the threats that were known. He did not configure the armed services to resist a nationalist insurgency. He did not do so because every president since LBJ has known that the USA's strategy includes avoiding involvement in wars of national liberation.

W overlooked that element of strategy because he subordinated the US national interests to those of Saudi Arabia, to whom he owed an enormous political debt.

I continue to be bemused by people who have no understanding of military science and strategy who come up with statements like yours, which do nothing except to headline your own ignorance.

Answer 4

a better question would be why go to war the world as a whole can shut down any country,we as a nation need to protect our own boarders.As for spending billions we dont have we must borrow that money from people we dont want to live like or do bussiness with.

Answer 5

thats all a bunch of bull crap political wrangling

no equiptment that the military needed was ever denied them , in any administration during times of fighting , it doesnt make a bit of diffrence that clinton said he cut the armed forces budget ......its bull ........the military was never in need of anything , and as far as bush "having" to upgrade our military........nonsense..........just another way to get the people behind the war............wave the flag and say....our fighting boys need this .............bull.............

when the military is allowed to spend hundreds of dollars for a damn toilet seat ........... yeah like they needed more money ..........right.................and the special forces that no one hears about that can kill you without even knowing they were around ..........and the laser guided precision missiles that drop out of the sky and down an elevator shaft and onto a flys nose...............gee ..wonder where that came from if the military didnt have any money............hmmmm let me think

its all political bull ...............just a way to blame the previous admin. for all the shortcomings when the new
"head dumba** ' gets in the oval office


B.

Answer 6

The other side of that coin is that Bush should not have sent soldiers into Iraq without making sure they had the armor and equipment they needed.

Answer 7

Those things cost nothing, compared to what the military sacrifice for us.

Answer 8

We just gave Israel 8 billion in miliatry aid. I think that it would have been much better off for our own troops.

Answer 9

Hold up Mr. Facist.

One of the reasons why Clinton cut the military budget is because he didn't believe in pursuing unjust, unprovoked and illegal wars. What? You can't believe I just said that. Check the record, the Bush administration finally admitted it!

Clinton also didn't believe in offering government sponsored subsidies to arms manufactures.

Rather than create a false conjecture, you should try framing your question around "How much money has Right Wing(nut) Conservatives" profitted from this immoral sacrifice of young American service personnel. What do you think the value of Halliburton stock is right now? A lot more than before the war. Read up on your history pal, war is just another way to redistribute wealth. Put another way, Bush & Co. is stealing it from the Iraqis and the American people.

If Bush and the hawks that peck in his ear didn't export their empirial notion of global emminent domain we would NOT have had ANY soldiers dying for THEIR profit.

Its about time you wised up and stopped apologizing for the RADICAL CHRISTIAN politicians in our capital.

Answer 10

When the US is NOT in a war, like the Clinton years, you don't need a huge Defense budget.
Oh, I miss the good ol' days of peacet time.