Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (84364)	6/23/1999 8:32:00 PM
From: Diamond Jim	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

"But at the very least, shouldn't we try?" Why don't you and Elmer enlist? or since Elmer doesn't like how the US involves oneself, he could just become a mercenary.

To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (84364)	6/24/1999 4:02:00 AM
From: Gerald Walls	Respond to of 186894

As this is probably becoming(?) boring to most here, I intend for this to be my last post on this subject. Excuse me, but where is Somalia located? Our main purposes for going into Somalia were: 1) To distribute food, 2) To get the news media to shut up, and 3) As a hot potato that Bush wanted to set up for Clinton. ======================== There was an interesting article in today's (6/23) Investors Business Daily about the House wanting to use the military as a border patrol, and also how some want to use it a law enforcement arm in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. The portions relevant to this discussion: ================================= Who's Watching Our Borders? House Wants Military to Help with Border Control It's such a novel idea -- using the U.S. military to defend the borders of the U.S. To make it legal, though, it'll take an act of Congress. It seems the president can start, fight and win a foreign war, then occupy the defeated country, without violating the War Powers Clause of the U.S. Constitution. ... [Mack Owens, a professor of strategy and force planning at the Naval War College] says the U.S military as often performed "constabulary" duties in its 200-year history -- in the Indian Wars, the military occupation of the South after the Civil War, the Philippine insurrection and the pursuit of boarder bandits like Poncho Villa earlier this century. But for much of this century, the U.S. military has followed the thinking of 19th century Army officer Emory Upton. Upton advocated a standing, professional military on the Prussian model. He believed the military's purpose should be fighting wars, not keeping the peace. The aim in fighting wars is to "close with and destroy the enemy," often with "superior firepower," Owens said. Constabulary duties require restraint. Police officers are taught to use force only when necessary and are liable when they use excessive force. Military leaders worry that constabulary duties -- or peacekeeping -- clash with the military's organizational culture and could degrade its war-fighting ability. "It will give them a psychology of restraint, which will make it difficult for them to survive in actual combat," said Col. Charles Dunlap, chief legal adviser to the U.S. Central Command Air Forces. But the U.S. military is already keeping the peace in places like Haiti, Bosnia and now Kosovo. Why can't it do the same here at home? ... Military historians warn that military rule is often oppressive by civilian standards When used routinely to keep order, the military is often corrupted and loses the support of the people. "That's why ... relations (between civilians and the military) in Latin America and Africa are such a mess, because most of what these armies do is suppress their own populations," said Owen. ...