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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe NYC who wrote (131838)	2/7/2001 12:34:03 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571399

Joe, I wasn't really trying to counter your argument, I was just trying to put it in perspective. The real relevance of military costs have got to include an adjusted figure for salaries, be they in currency or just subsidized support.

To: Joe NYC who wrote (131838)	2/7/2001 3:27:26 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571399

So when I see a statement like Amy's that military spending is too high, I just wonder about the basis for that opinion. Joe, Its 16.8% of a multi trillion dollar budget...that's where my opinion comes from that enough is enough. What facts do you have to support your case that we do not spend enough? In the last 100 years, how many times has a nuclear missile been deflected from our shores? How many times has an armada attacked our coasts? How many times has American soil been bombed? How many times have we been invaded? I learned in American history that of all those possibilities, we were bombed only once....by the Japanese at the beginning of WWII...what did you learn? In light of the above, I don't think its Amy who has to support her position but rather it your position that's appears to be hanging out there with its butt exposed. ted