Are US Armed Forces larger or smaller under Prez Bush than under previous Presidents?
916247
Smaller. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, it was determined that we didn't need a giant military. Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43 all engaged in "modernization" programs that scaled back manpower and replaced it with more effective technology.\n\nEven now, our problem isn't a military that's too small... it's a military that's improperly configured for what we're trying to do with it. Bush has been shrinking the Navy and the Air Force for a while, but it looks like he'll have to expand the Army and Marines.
379764
A few weeks ago I answered a question about whether or not Air Force One was armed.  The following answer addresses that question as well as giving some other information you might find interesting.  In referrence to the Cessna question, I could make a case for calling it Cessna One or perhaps Private Presidential Air One.  Anyway, enjoy the read, I had fun calling back some very old memories.\n\nNo, the United States Air Force Boeing 747 normally associated with the call sign Air Force One is not equipped with offensive weapons. It does have a lot of defensive goodies on it and, of course, those little jets that fly along side are armed to the teeth.\n\nI am going to split hairs with a couple of the other answers, not because they are wrong, but because I can add some detail.\n\nAir Force One is any US Air Force aircraft while, and only while the President is on board the aircraft.\n\nThe same holds true for other branches of our military. The President routinely flies on Marine One. Typically this would be the helicopter used to shuttle him on shorter trips, but if he were flying in any Marine aircraft it would be Marine One.\n\nThe same for the Navy, Army, or the Coast Guard.\n\nFor example, when President Bush landed on the Aircraft Carrier he was in a Naval aircraft and it's designation would have been Navy One.\n\nOne more tid-bit. When President Nixon resigned the office his resignation was effective at noon eastern time. He left Andrews AFB in Air Force One. It was Air Force One at that moment because his resignation had not taken effect. Somewhere, I think it was over Kansas, the Air Force C-135 carrying the former President changed it's call sign from Air Force One to, I think, Air Force 26000. I would hate to be quoted on that number as I am working from memory.\n\nI have already told you a great deal more than you may have wanted to know but let me add one final sentence. Everything I said about the aircraft designation "Air Force One" holds true for the designation Air Force, Marine, Navy, Army, or Coast Guard Two when the aircraft is carrying the Vice President.
69814
Bush's edge was 2.5 percent, smaller than Wooddrow Wilson's pathetic 1916 margin of 3.2 percent. Bu$h, Cheney and all the cronies called it a mandate. Neocons on TV called it a mandate. In 1936 FDR had a mandate. In 1956 Eisenhower had a mandate, In 1964 Johnson had a mandate, 1972 Nixon had a mandate. In 1996 Clinton had a mandate, he beat Dole by 8.5 percent. the numbers you need are at www.secretaryofstate.gov.
609664
I am guessing both are more than likely trained along the same lines. The US and British military seem to work together well, so that's what made me say that.
330522
No.  Cheney is Palpatine.  Bush is more like Jar-Jar, but he speaks less English than Jar-Jar.
404161
The U.S government started a down-sizing move several years back. As a result, there are about 30% less actvie duty personnel now, and that means that there are that many less people to utilize the installations. With less people, there is less need for bases everywhere, including the U.S. There have been lots of base-closings all over the world, but there are still enough to handle those who remain on active duty, either married or single.
687074
Usa under President Shrub
70163
George W. Bush - 43rd President of the US
143124
Thats a stupid question to ask. Sory to be so blunt but look at it logicaly do you think anyone from the US Armed Forces is gonna say what were doing to anyone but the President of the U.S and the troops overseas? They don't want to be thrown in the brigs. I agree with everyone else this is the type of question to ask the gov't not Yahoo users and I know either way you will not get an answer.
244435
Ulitmatey the US was.  The Bush administration showed a total lack of dilligence and competancy.  This happened on their watch.  I don't have a lot of faith in a president who reads books about pet goats when we are under attack.\n\nAlso lets hear it for the National Security Advisor, Condisleeza Rice or Can't Believuh Rice. She had no idea someone might fly planes into buildings? The World Trade center was DESIGNED to handle a hit from a 707.\nAny one read Tom Clancy's DEBT of HONOR where a 747 gets flown into the capitol...and that came out in 1995.\n\nOur foreign policy and economic policies were catylysts as well.  9/11 was a sympton of an underlying problem and a complex one at that.  See the movie Sryiana ( sp?).
14574
I think that we will have a military prescence in those two countries for many years to come.  Look at Germany and Japan. 60 years after the end of WWII and we still have forces in those two countries.
231542
The military is not stupid. We need men to protect our country. What we need is better POLITICAL LEADERS that do not start unnecessary wars.
894587
Our armed forces are much better suited to fighting conventional forces than insurgencies. This is true of most armies.
1037346
Studies have show political affiliation is mostly emotional - maybe minorities are a little less eager to spend soldiers lives on an obviously poorly conceived political and economic adventure that so far has mostly benefited Halliburton and various defense industries.  The fact that minorities are over-represented among those dying may be a factor, as well as the old-white-guy look of the administration.  And look where Bush's power base is - mostly-white business owners and rural white fundamentalists...  \n\nThose last two may explain why the BushCons were too ignorant to see that the Shiites, Sunis, & Kurds wouldn't get along much better than the Serbs and various ethnic groups did in the Balkans.  Neither Rumsfeld, Cheney, or George W learned the most basic lesson of foreign policy in the past 40 years - forcing people to adopt your culture at gunpoint is expensive and has a huge maintenance tail...
707378
probably no military as it seems all the retired ones disagree so strongly with Bush.  It is always interesting to see who gets on these things, but you can bet that someone like James Baker, Bush Sr.s man will be there to look after the boy.  Idiots got us in, and now we are supposed to be exited that this team of the same kind of "experts" are going to get us out.
1173239
"To Bush-bashers, it may be the most infuriating revelation yet from the military records of the two presidential candidates: the young George W. Bush had a higher I.Q. than did the young John Kerry... Mr. Bush's score on the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test at age 22 again suggests that his I.Q was the mid-120's, putting Mr. Bush in about the 95th percentile of the population, according to Mr. Sailer. Mr. Kerry's I.Q. was about 120, in the 91st percentile, according to Mr. Sailer's extrapolation of his score at age 22 on the Navy Officer Qualification Test."
345214
Well, Bush the younger is a jogger, but assuming they're all back from the dead and in their prime, then all of the presidents who were generals (there were a lot of those in the 19th century) would be probable winners.  I'm gonna go ahead and guess Franklin Pierce, because not only would he have to have been in good shape in the Army, he was also really good looking.  It's always nice to see the handsomest win.  Fatass Taft would definitely finish last, assuming he didn't have a heart attack first.