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: long-gone who wrote (234)	8/31/1999 12:43:00 PM
From: MNI	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1449

The standing army's fundamental differences from a national militia: - professional army can use highly organised weapons, like spy- satellites, carrier warships, or maybe one day a full-fledged SDI - professional army can operate on foreign ground, thus keeping war outside - professional army can therefore intimidate foreign powers (but not terrorists that use tactics relying on small teams) Now: which 'strange stances' could be changed to allow the abolition of carriers, spy satellites and precautions against foreign powers to become hostile foreign powers? And would it be worthwile, for the only reason to allow you to refer to Pres. Jackson for a justification of your opinion on gun-laws? I am sure you have domestic and contemporary reasons for your opinion, so it might be easier to let the standing army question at its' status quo. I do not take position here on current gun-laws, nor on Andrew Jackson. Only it seems to me both don't go together well anymore.