Juliann Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 The first true modernization of defense strategy and the alignment and utilization of forces in more than 25 years, basing National Defense and Homeland Defense on joint capabilities, using all elements of national power rather than component force set piece strategy that may or may not work. Using an adaptive approach to planning and strategy rather than deliberate set piece plans that may not work when the first shot is fired. Developing and implementing a new theory towards the aquisition process that over the course of the next 6 years will not only provide like capabilities to all forces but will reduce or eliminate redundancy, identify gaps and develope solutions all of which will save the taxpayer billions over the old methods. There's about 10 paragraphs more, and that's just the Department of Defense. 335967[/snapback] Wasn't Bush against The Democrat's idea of creating Homland Security AND basing National Defense and Homeland Defense on joint capabilities?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 Wasn't Bush against The Democrat's idea of creating Homland Security AND basing National Defense and Homeland Defense on joint capabilities?? 335982[/snapback] Trust me...you're way, way, WAY out of your depth on this topic. Not that that's going to matter to a hydrocephalic moron like you. I should just go make some popcorn and sit back and enjoy watching you get B word-slapped around over this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 Hey, you have absolutely no qualifications to be discussing this stuff. Now, point your browser to MoveOn.org and educate yourself. 335975[/snapback] Developing a true strategy, global in nature in conjunction with about 90 different allies to root out and combat terrorism wherever it may be found. Developing the first coalition of nations in history to work in concert to stem, and eventually stop the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Developing a Global plan and organization to combat WMD where other states and non-state actors are unwilling to comply with normal convention. And best of all, actually DOING something about it, rather than make side deals and give it lip service as the last Democratic Administration has done. Let's not forget restoring the idea in our adversaries minds that we will stick with, and see things through rather than cut and run as was demonstrated by the aforementioned administration. Like it or not, a lot of the problems we have now, to include the 9/11 attacks can be traced back to the strategic impressions given to many state and non-state actors because of our limp wristed activities of the 90's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juliann Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 Trust me...you're way, way, WAY out of your depth on this topic. Not that that's going to matter to a hydrocephalic moron like you. I should just go make some popcorn and sit back and enjoy watching you get B word-slapped around over this... 335989[/snapback] Oh really... and your language sounds REALLY intellegent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 Like it or not, a lot of the problems we have now, to include the 9/11 attacks can be traced back to the strategic impressions given to many state and non-state actors because of our limp wristed activities of the 90's. 335990[/snapback] But you're wrong, because Bush is bad. Kerry, on the other hand, now he had a plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 Wasn't Bush against The Democrat's idea of creating Homland Security AND basing National Defense and Homeland Defense on joint capabilities?? 335982[/snapback] No, the administration very early on saw the need to consolidate HD activities and focus on the problem as a whole. the debate was in how to structure and go about it, strategically. Joint capabilities has been on Rumsfelds wish list for years, and the current gang in the OSD is actually working very hard to transform the DOD into an organization and force more suited to the types of threats we face now, not those of 20 years ago. Transformation is a purely Bush Admin initiative. A lot of ex-whoevers have jumped on the bandwagon, saying they thought of it - but it simply isn't so. The Joint Transformation Planning Guidance is a Bush administration document, not a Clinton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 Oh really... and your language sounds REALLY intellegent. 335993[/snapback] But...but...but...I thought we were brothers? Trust me, if you want to argue national security with "Ghost of BiB", your best bet is to tuck your tail between your legs and beat a hasty retreat, maintaining whatever shreds of whatever random synapse firings pass for "dignity" in a brain donor such as yourself may remain. Or, you can just stick around and entertain us with your ignorance. Personally, though a sense of decency makes me want to protect you from your own idiocy and suggest the former, I'd find the latter vastly more fun to watch... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 No, the administration very early on saw the need to consolidate HD activities and focus on the problem as a whole. the debate was in how to structure and go about it, strategically. Joint capabilities has been on Rumsfelds wish list for years, and the current gang in the OSD is actually working very hard to transform the DOD into an organization and force more suited to the types of threats we face now, not those of 20 years ago. Transformation is a purely Bush Admin initiative. A lot of ex-whoevers have jumped on the bandwagon, saying they thought of it - but it simply isn't so. The Joint Transformation Planning Guidance is a Bush administration document, not a Clinton. 335997[/snapback] You must be wrong. CNN told me otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juliann Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 Developing a true strategy, global in nature in conjunction with about 90 different allies to root out and combat terrorism wherever it may be found. Oh really, what strategy did Bush develop? Creating animosity? Developing the first coalition of nations in history to work in concert to stem, and eventually stop the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Oh that's rich. What about all the loose nukes in Russia? The funding for that is the lowest it's been in 6 years. Maybe because 100 Billion was spent chasing a wild goosein Iraq. Developing a Global plan and organization to combat WMD where other states and non-state actors are unwilling to comply with normal convention. And best of all, actually DOING something about it, rather than make side deals and give it lip service as the last Democratic Administration has done. Let's not forget restoring the idea in our adversaries minds that we will stick with, and see things through rather than cut and run as was demonstrated by the aforementioned administration. Oh you mean like the swift and successful operation against the Serbs and their ethnic cleansing? Like it or not, a lot of the problems we have now, to include the 9/11 attacks can be traced back to the strategic impressions given to many state and non-state actors because of our limp wristed activities of the 90's. Like maybe Bush should have paid attention to the warnings about Al Qaeda and his daily briefings Wasn't it the Republicans who funded and brought Bin Laden to power? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 Developing a true strategy, global in nature in conjunction with about 90 different allies to root out and combat terrorism wherever it may be found. Developing the first coalition of nations in history to work in concert to stem, and eventually stop the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Developing a Global plan and organization to combat WMD where other states and non-state actors are unwilling to comply with normal convention. And best of all, actually DOING something about it, rather than make side deals and give it lip service as the last Democratic Administration has done. Let's not forget restoring the idea in our adversaries minds that we will stick with, and see things through rather than cut and run as was demonstrated by the aforementioned administration. Like it or not, a lot of the problems we have now, to include the 9/11 attacks can be traced back to the strategic impressions given to many state and non-state actors because of our limp wristed activities of the 90's. 335990[/snapback] Good stuff....but I prefer my cousin's interpretation of what went down in the 90s: "Man, did we !@#$ up" He is an FBI agent and was on the Anti-Terrorism task force during those wonderful 90s, in case youre wondering about his credentials to make such a statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 Oh really, what strategy did Bush develop? Creating animosity? Developing the first coalition of nations in history to work in concert to stem, and eventually stop the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Oh that's rich. What about all the loose nukes in Russia? The funding for that is the lowest it's been in 6 years. Maybe because 100 Billion was spent chasing a wild goosein Iraq. Developing a Global plan and organization to combat WMD where other states and non-state actors are unwilling to comply with normal convention. And best of all, actually DOING something about it, rather than make side deals and give it lip service as the last Democratic Administration has done. Let's not forget restoring the idea in our adversaries minds that we will stick with, and see things through rather than cut and run as was demonstrated by the aforementioned administration. Oh you mean like the swift and successful operation against the Serbs and their ethnic cleansing? Like it or not, a lot of the problems we have now, to include the 9/11 attacks can be traced back to the strategic impressions given to many state and non-state actors because of our limp wristed activities of the 90's. Like maybe Bush should have paid attention to the warnings about Al Qaeda and his daily briefings Wasn't it the Republicans who funded and brought Bin Laden to power? 336000[/snapback] And you don't fail to disappoint... Like it or not, a lot of the problems we have now, to include the 9/11 attacks can be traced back to the strategic impressions given to many state and non-state actors because of our limp wristed activities of the 90's.Like maybe Bush should have paid attention to the warnings about Al Qaeda and his daily briefings Wasn't it the Republicans who funded and brought Bin Laden to power? You REALLY need to go out and educate yourself. This is extraordinarily and demonstrably far from the truth. I can recommend a good six or eight books, if you ever decide you want to pursue having a clue on this subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 Like maybe Bush should have paid attention to the warnings about Al Qaeda and his daily briefingsWasn't it the Republicans who funded and brought Bin Laden to power? Maybe Im just horrible at simple math.. Clinton "ignored" warnings about Osama for eight years. Bush "ignored" warnings about Osama for eight months. But somehow, 9/11 is all BUSH's fault, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juliann Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 Maybe Im just horrible at simple math.. Clinton "ignored" warnings about Osama for eight years. Bush "ignored" warnings about Osama for eight months. But somehow, 9/11 is all BUSH's fault, right? 336006[/snapback] Clinton Ignored Osama???? Oh brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 Maybe Im just horrible at simple math.. Clinton "ignored" warnings about Osama for eight years. Bush "ignored" warnings about Osama for eight years. But somehow, 9/11 is all BUSH's fault, right? 336006[/snapback] Even better...Clinton's foreign policy w/r/t Afghanistan was in the hands of one organization: Unocal. A friggin' oil company dictated foreign policy to the State Department...to the point where the Taleban actually believed Unocal was a US Government organization. Unocal only stopped determining Afghanistan policy when, as a practical matter, Hillary Clinton decided to cave in to Mavis Leno's (wife of Jay) censure of Taleban's treatment of women. It's not so much Clinton "ignored" warnings, as much as he didn't even have a policy in which any warnings could be addressed at all - either acted on or ignored. But it must be Bush's fault...because fixing eight years of directionless and incoherent foreign policy should happen overnight... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juliann Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 Even better...Clinton's foreign policy w/r/t Afghanistan was in the hands of one organization: Unocal. A friggin' oil company dictated foreign policy to the State Department...to the point where the Taleban actually believed Unocal was a US Government organization. Unocal only stopped determining Afghanistan policy when, as a practical matter, Hillary Clinton decided to cave in to Mavis Leno's (wife of Jay) censure of Taleban's treatment of women. It's not so much Clinton "ignored" warnings, as much as he didn't even have a policy in which any warnings could be addressed at all - either acted on or ignored. But it must be Bush's fault...because fixing eight years of directionless and incoherent foreign policy should happen overnight... 336015[/snapback] HA! YA, Bush is doing a bang up job on Foreign policy! That's the best one I've heard today...thanks forthe laugh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 HA! YA, Bush is doing a bang up job on Foreign policy! That's the best one I've heard today...thanks forthe laugh! 336018[/snapback] Don't forget North Korea...Bush is ignoring that too, isn't he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 HA! YA, Bush is doing a bang up job on Foreign policy! That's the best one I've heard today...thanks forthe laugh! 336018[/snapback] Im going back to work.......this is just too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 Developing a true strategy, global in nature in conjunction with about 90 different allies to root out and combat terrorism wherever it may be found. Oh really, what strategy did Bush develop? Creating animosity? The Global Plan to Combat Terrorism, known as GWOT pulls together not only Defense capabilities but economic, diplomatic, informational and others as well. Those who live with this understand that there is a serious problem going on, with the intent of a shifting of the balance of power and influence away from essentially democratic convention and into something resembling a fuedal kingdom of middle ages mentality. Unfortunately, a feudal kingdom with deliverable nuclear and biological weapons and a hell of a lot of oil money. Terrorism, which I prefer to refer to as asymetrical warfare, is only a tool at this point to begin the activities required to acheive this goal, until such time as there is enough power within these coalitions to start waving a heavier sword. The animosity is there, has been there and will continue to be there. We must forget about what Joe the Baker in Paris or Baghdad thinks and a little bit more about what are true adversaries are up to. This is not, and never will be a true "hearts and minds" type of thing in the near term. 10 years down the road it may be different. Developing the first coalition of nations in history to work in concert to stem, and eventually stop the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Oh that's rich. What about all the loose nukes in Russia? The funding for that is the lowest it's been in 6 years. Maybe because 100 Billion was spent chasing a wild goosein Iraq. The funding is lowered because most of the actual weapons have been disposed of, under the on-site treaty provisions administered by the Defense Threat reduction agency implementing the Nunn-Lugar Act. Now, most of the disposal efforts are geared towards dismantling the force structure that accompanied the weapons - dismantling submarines, bombers, etc. The money simply is not needed. Russian administrative issues have literally millions in funding tied up right now, not being used. Why throw more money at it? and, BTW...what loose nukes? The warheads were controlled by the KGB. They were very good at it. Developing a Global plan and organization to combat WMD where other states and non-state actors are unwilling to comply with normal convention. And best of all, actually DOING something about it, rather than make side deals and give it lip service as the last Democratic Administration has done. Let's not forget restoring the idea in our adversaries minds that we will stick with, and see things through rather than cut and run as was demonstrated by the aforementioned administration. Oh you mean like the swift and successful operation against the Serbs and their ethnic cleansing? Yes, great example. One could have picked either side on that one. Nothing like a TV war for the ratings. You want to explain why we were there taking care of Europe's problem for them? And how do you define success? We still have a heck of a lot of troops hanging out there. And, guess what? The albanians have a funny habit of, when not running drugs and guns up from the Stans, doing a little ethnic cleansing of their own on the Serbs. Like it or not, a lot of the problems we have now, to include the 9/11 attacks can be traced back to the strategic impressions given to many state and non-state actors because of our limp wristed activities of the 90's. Like maybe Bush should have paid attention to the warnings about Al Qaeda and his daily briefings Bush paid as much or more attention than previous administrations. the 9/11 attacks were planned long before he took oath of office. the failures were in the system, which has been changed and is continuing to change and improve. No matter who was sitting in the White House, him, gore, or charlie the tuna...under the conditions of the system at the time-nothing was going to prevent the 9/11 attacks. Read the commission Report. Wasn't it the Republicans who funded and brought Bin Laden to power? No, this is basically an urban myth. The CIA funded the resistance in Afghanistan in a proxy war against the soviet union. Bin Laden allied and asociated himself with them in an effort to remove the Soviets from a muslim nation. bin Laden is a multi-millionaire in his own right, and a chief function of his was to fund the fighters himself. Anything that trickled to him came through the entire military assistance program, not to him specifically. 336000[/snapback] Have a nice day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 Have a nice day. 336035[/snapback] but...but...but...Bush is bad! Why are you even bothering with all this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 Don't forget North Korea...Bush is ignoring that too, isn't he? 336027[/snapback] I can't wait to see the response to this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts