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.

Pastimes : The Truth about Waco -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MNI who wrote (232)	8/31/1999 12:07:00 PM
From: long-gone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1449

Perhaps if we, as a nation, take the many strange stances toward foreign powers we might not need as great a standing army.

To: MNI who wrote (232)	8/31/1999 11:41:00 PM
From: John Inine	Respond to of 1449

So only a professional, high tech standing army is of value in a modern war ? Is Andrew Jackson's idea obsolete ? I don't know, maybe. But I think the Viet-Cong and residents of Mogadishue might disagree. The lessons and wisdom of the past are dismissed at our peril. Regards You may have noticed though, R.H+ C.H., that Pres. Jackson's axioma were outdated by the introduction of weapons of mass destruction, unthinkable still at his time, that make it well possible for a selection of foreign foes to extinguish the whole population of the U.S.; so that even 240 million well-armed men cannot be 'the bulwark of our defense'; that therefore a solidaric system of defense had to be employed and that consequentially the U.S. have a professional standing army, and cannot rely anymore on a national militia, armed by weapons that could be in private posession, but on not anything else than a standing army for defense ?