Something I found in an e-mail

[ICKY]

I found this in an e-mail from my aunt. Intresting facts. Sorry for the long read, but its worth it.

Here's some interesting facts you wont see in the mainstream press. Please vote in the Nov. elections! If you do not vote-do not complain
CAN YOU NAME THIS COUNTRY?
709,000 REGULAR (ACTIVE DUTY) PERSONNEL. 293,000 RESERVE TROOPS.
EIGHT STANDING ARMY DIVISIONS.
20 AIR FORCE AND NAVY AIR WINGS WITH 2,000 COMBAT AIRCRAFT, 232 STRATEGIC BOMBERS.
19 STRATEGIC BALLISTIC MISSILE SUBMARINES, WITH 3,114 NUCLEAR WARHEADS ON 232 MISSILES 500 ICBMs WITH 1,950 WARHEADS.
FOUR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS AND 121 SURFACE COMBAT SHIPS AND SUBMARINES PLUS ALL THE SUPPORT BASES, SHIPYARDS, AND LOGISTICAL ASSETS NEEDED TO SUSTAIN SUCH A NAVAL FORCE. IS THIS COUNTRY-
RUSSIA ? NO
CHINA ? NO
GREAT BRITAIN ? NO
FRANCE ? WRONG AGAIN ( What a Laugh!!!!!)
MUST BE USA ? STILL WRONG (SORT OF)
GIVE UP ? THESE ARE THE AMERICAN MILITARY FORCES THAT WERE ELIMINATED DURING THE ADMINISTRATION OF BILL CLINTON AND AL GORE. AND [their elimination] was 100% SUPPORTED BY JOHN KERRY (THESE HE DID VOTE ON) Get it? We had them, now we dont. This is not a new message, but a reminder of why we now have over-deployed our (nominally trained) National Guard and Reserve Units. HE SAID CHECK THE RECORD, We Did ! Sen. John Kerry, Democrat from Massachusetts says he is the strongest Presidential Candidate on National Defense ! He said Check the Record.. We Did ! Here is what we learned:
He voted to kill the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. He voted to kill the M-1 Abrams Tank. He voted to kill every Aircraft carrier laid down from 1988. He voted to kill the Aegis anti aircraft system. He voted to Kill the F-15 strike eagle. He voted to Kill the Block 60 F-16. He voted to Kill the P-3 Orion upgrade. He voted to Kill the B-1. He voted to Kill the B-2. He voted to Kill the Patriot anti Missile system. He voted to Kill the FA-18. He voted to Kill the F117. He voted to kill every military appropriation for the development and deployment of every weapons systems since 1988, including a bill for battle armor for our troops. It is most likely, with Sen. John Kerry as President and Commander in Chief of our Armed Services, that they will cease to function, making it impossible for our country to protect itself. John Kerry voted to kill all anti-terrorism activities of each and every agency of the U.S. Government. He voted to cut the funding of the FBI by 60% He voted to cut the funding for the CIA by 80%. He voted to cut the funding for the NSA by 80%. THEN, and this is abhorrent to almost every American Voter be you Democrat, Republican or Independent, he voted to increase OUR funding for U.N operations by 800% !! Ask yourself Is THIS the person you want as President of these United States providing for the Common Defense of the Nation and be the Leader of the Free World ? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Voting history can be accessed through Senate voting records. The above is an accurate summary.

Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!

[S14DB]

Some how I don't care about how many bombs we have. All ways seems to be enough.

[mrmephistopheles]

I'm pretty sure that email's been aorund since Clinton re-election time.
Also, I removed the URL. It wasn't an MSN link, it was just a hastily made-to-look-like-MSN link.

[Phlip]

Don't you guys just LOVE the shit-slinging contests that arise around election time?

[AKADriver]

I don't listen to people who don't know how to use capital letters. I also don't listen to people that say "it's all true!!! look it up!" instead of quoting sources.

[tastyratz]

i also seem to note that everyone seems to neglect the fact that we have a retarded overabundance of forces and have hundreds of times more defense than most countries out there. sure it looks like alot when you see those numbers but thats only a small percentage of what we actually have. know what i think? get rid of more of it. how many nukes does it take to blow up a whole country? not many... how many do we have? thousands. can anyone explain that reasoning? were not defensive were wastefully defensive and id love to see money go where its actually needed. heres another controversial fact terrorism happens whether or not we have 100 or 10000 nukes, whether we have 1 million or 100 million troops. there is very little we can do about it... deal with it. we cant station a soldier on every street corner tap every phone line or sweep every house by random. its really not hard to set off a bomb some place now and it can happen everywhere, everyone seems to think that since theres been a few major events lately that weve been living in this protective bubble made by the government but the threats always been there and always will be. statistically almost a quarter million people die a day as part of the life cycle. ignorance is bliss. if we have someone tell us everythings gonna be ok and show the sheer numbers of defence we have then everyone can sleep at night. did i just piss off people? you betcha i bet i pissed off alot of people. wake up guys.

[MakotoS13]

statistically almost a quarter million people die a day as part of the life cycle. ignorance is bliss. if we have someone tell us everythings gonna be ok and show the sheer numbers of defence we have then everyone can sleep at night. did i just piss off people? you betcha i bet i pissed off alot of people. wake up guys.

its my morbid opinion that this planet is too crowded anyhow. whats funny is that both sides do this crap and both sides have more dirt on em than white on rice. neither one of em are true patriotic, selfless, righteous individuals.

so ya know what i think? screw it. call it the popularity contest it is. i like GW better than the other guy cause his forrest gump act is hella funny. that and i think kerry just looks fishy :eek3:

anybody that thinks they know all the facts should shut the hell up. i think that'd help us out quite a bit.

[Var]

As long as John Kerry didnt personally plan 9/11, i favor him over Bush.

[Andrew Bohan]

i'd vote for shashlik before i voted for bush

[Jeff240sx]

Hmm. Clinton. That was either a) when you were in diapers, and therefor don't remember, b) during peacetime, or c) all of the above. Why pay 1 million people to sit around and do nothing? Remember. Republican = larger government, big business, strong military. Democrat = smaller government, small business, and good-enough military.
Anyway, if I were in the senate, I would have voted to get rid of that shit too. What the fuck do we need with 3,000 nuclear warheads? We haven't used one in 60 years. Do you know what annual maintenance on 2,000 planes and ships and carriers is? Do you know what the OPERATING cost is? Did we die from massive attacks when Clinton did this? Nope. Did we reduce the debt and end the deficit? Yes. Would this same action go on right now, during a time of war? HELL NO. Not with anyone's government.
Now. Posting this shows your absolute lack of knowledge on politics, economics, and history. People like you shouldn't get to vote. There should be a test, and it'd be a priviledge, not a right. I know you didn't write it Icky, but posting up is one-and-the same.
-Jeff

[Jeff240sx]

Oh yea. There's a reason you won't see that in "mainstream media." Because it's 8 years old, and has no bearing on who is a better person.
-Jeff

[tastyratz]

you sir is a very generic direction. its nice to somewhat see someone who agrees with me on this shit though i mean really. were a country of excess but imagine if we cut the costs of such stupid useless shit as a retardedly large multiplication of a military and directed the funds where it could really be used to actually better the country as a whole...

[Jeff240sx]

Edited for ya tastyratz.
-Jeff

[ICKY]

To tell ya the truth, i'd rather have someone other than Bush running for president. Kerry is just whack to me, but Bush isnt that much better. This up-comming election is gonna sux0r. All candidates suck.

[Phlip]

I bet if we could get that video of me Giving the Bush twins pearl necklaces while eating a turkey burger drenched with Heinz ketchup (bottle in plain view) leaked to the internet and news, no one would vote for Bush OR Kerry. They'd dig up Ralph Nader and vote for his ass, even though he's a bit funny looking.

[nocomedown]

Jeff - just to clarify a few things, the democratic platform is one of larger and expanding government, hence raised taxes, programs such as social security, and the general attitude that the people can't handle problems themselves, so let the government take care of it. also, under the Clinton administration, we were not always at peace. remember Bosnia? or "operation: desert fox" in Iraq. those are just 2 among many situations where we took an offensive against other nations. the reason that these aren't really remembered because they accomplished nothing. rather than stay strong and finish the task (what we're doing now), at the first sign of a downed helicopter, we'd pull out. same in Iraq...all we did was lob a few cruise missiles and think that everything would be OK.

anyways, just wanted to clarify a few things.

[Jeff240sx]

Bosnia? Milosivich? We sent 2 tomohawks to his HOUSE! Not near it. Not the government building. We used laser guided cruise missles and hit his home. Sure, there were "not peace" times, but knowing we had no business there, we left when we took casualities. Fair enough I thought. Here we need to be fighting, in the past we've just interveined. But under Clinton, we really did less fighting than we have in 20 years under Clinton. And yes, democrats are for social issues, welfare, social security, ect which raises taxes. I'd rather pay to help other people (welfare/unemployment excluded under current dispersion) then pay to have redundancy and waste. Comparing Bush's war record to Clinton or older Bush is like comparing Apples and Hammers. Same with Clinton's disposal of unnecessary (at the time) troops and weapons, which was the point of my initial post. I'm really not for Bush or Kerry, I will chose the lesser of the two evils when the time comes. I'm also against the current 2-party system, as party lines are playing way too much into decisions. Why can't it be what's best, rather than what the House Whip says to do. Ya know? Jeff for president in 2020! (Really).
-Jeff

[nocomedown]

oh i agree that there's no comparison to the state of foreign affairs under Clinton and those under Bush, but you have to admit, a lot has changed. I was just pointing out a few discrepancies that I saw...no biggy.
I see what you mean about the 2 party system, too. It has its positives and negatives. Under our system, the 2 major parties have a broader platform than in countries where there are many parties. It really kinda gets out of hand when there are so many parties because they all focus on pretty much one issue. Look at France's National Front party for example...their only issue is to get foreigners out of France. Russia is the same way too...too many parties with too narrow of an ideology.

[Jeff240sx]

I'd personally rather have a multi-party system with narrow ideologies than our current 2p system with the same narrow ideology. I think that party lines are fine, as long as you don't crap on the little people by following them. As in, there should be no cut-and-dry way a dem or pub does something. A bit of thought is all I ask of the people I pay $125,000 up to $800,000 a year for.
-Jeff

[S14DB]

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/kerryedwards.php

[TheSnail]

Bosnia? Milosivich? We sent 2 tomohawks to his HOUSE! Not near it. Not the government building. We used laser guided cruise missles and hit his home. Sure, there were "not peace" times, but knowing we had no business there, we left when we took casualities. Fair enough I thought. Here we need to be fighting, in the past we've just interveined. But under Clinton, we really did less fighting than we have in 20 years under Clinton. And yes, democrats are for social issues, welfare, social security, ect which raises taxes. I'd rather pay to help other people (welfare/unemployment excluded under current dispersion) then pay to have redundancy and waste. Comparing Bush's war record to Clinton or older Bush is like comparing Apples and Hammers. Same with Clinton's disposal of unnecessary (at the time) troops and weapons, which was the point of my initial post. I'm really not for Bush or Kerry, I will chose the lesser of the two evils when the time comes. I'm also against the current 2-party system, as party lines are playing way too much into decisions. Why can't it be what's best, rather than what the House Whip says to do. Ya know? Jeff for president in 2020! (Really).
-Jeff


Im from Serbia, so I an you guys know the whole thing was a bunch of mix up and bs with America trying to intervene. Let me tell you the inside veiws. A religious war? Not hardily. Think of it this way. Pretend people from Mexico are immigrating to California to the point that 90% of the population is Mexican. Then the Mexicans now claim California as a part of Mexico. What do you think the 49 states of America would say? That’s right, get the fuck out, and if there is any resistance, you will be taken care of. That’s what Serbia was doing. The Croats are nothing but a bunch of shoe shiners at best, they are mainly the people that approach your car to wash the windows, with out your permission at a stop light, then demand money. So we basically terminating any of these fucks, that think this land is theirs. America sees this as some sort of "Hitler" move, then get them selves involved. Soon after getting involved they bomb the Chinese embassy, and that was the last you heard of the Bosnian Crisis, on the news. China was very pissed. That is when America was labeled for trying to be the "World Police". Now the whole Iraq deal... Should have never got involved. I wish Bill Clinton could be President again. He was a good man, and was a peaceful man. The whole nation could relate to him. Shit if you where president, damn right you would get your sectary to suck you off. Hey sectary! Suck my dick bitch! Im the President! Anyway Im getting carried away with myself, but all I want to say, is that we need a calm president, and not a violent one, that puts everyone at risk for no reason.