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: i-node who wrote (150523)	8/27/2002 8:42:00 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1585088

The military spending of the Reagan & Bush 41 administrations is precisely what enables us to conduct a large scale war with miniscule numbers of civilian casualties. Here's a concept...no war, no casualties... Al

To: i-node who wrote (150523)	8/28/2002 3:05:02 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1585088

That a liberal can complain about military spending is apparently a paradox; if, in fact, liberals are so concerned about civilian casualties and the consequences of war. I have said repeatedly that I am liberal on social issues and a conservative when it comes to financial expenditures.........just like Clinton. The military spending of the Reagan & Bush 41 administrations is precisely what enables us to conduct a large scale war with miniscule [sp?] numbers of civilian casualties. It is strange that you, big pacifist, should complain. Oh Christ, you are so full of it. How many people died in Vietnam? How many in WW II? The only reason casualties were low in the Gulf War and continue to be low in Afghanistan is because the former was a tin pan dictator with big appetites and little to back it up. As for the latter, what a joke........the Taliban were fighting us with sticks and stones. Its not surprising when a bigger and better equipped opponent goes into battle and suffers only a few casualties; much less than his much weaker opponent. What a joke....... I suspect the military expenditures of Reagan and Bush have saved more lives than they have taken. No other military in history can make such a claim. Big fukking deal......what in God's name did they accomplish? Reagan's expenditures did squat.......we have the mothballed armaments to prove it; Bush didn't finish the job and now you all want to go back in and spend a few more billion. Do you have a clue how much money has been spent to date in Afghanistan? Do you know that budget deficits keep getting extended it out........we are now out 4 years. I shouldn't complain too much.......it will be what nails Bush's coffin in 2004.