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 (159875)	2/3/2003 1:53:58 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1583662

You make these ridiculous assertions without any facts to back them up. There are plenty of facts. The most important function of our government is (or at least, it should be) the defense of the nation. Yet, after 8 years under Clinton, 8 years of successive military budget cuts, we are apparently putting off dealing with NK because it will stretch us too thin to deal with NK & Iraq at the same time. At least, according to liberals. You seem to think that the only purpose of the presidency is to start wars.......actually, in the Constitution, its Congress that's supposed to start wars but why quibble at this late date. Bush has an economy that's in a serious funk, homeland security that's doing a mixed job of protecting the homeland, nominations and the other miscellaneous garbage a president has to deal as well as an ongoing war in Afghanistan. Its not the military who can't take on another war front but its the current administration. And given the size and quality of their Iraqi coalition, it looks to me like the administration is a little frayed around the edges. So don't be blaming Bush's NK inaction on Clinton's defense cuts. Bush doesn't have time to be dealing with another nutcase. Besides, I suspect China has a tight rein on long jim, and Bush is learning what Clinton learned.....that long jim seems to know how far he can push things before he has to pull back and shut up. If liberals had their priorities straight, we wouldn't have had this problem. But we've had a decade of liberal rule, and it has seriously and adversely affected our military. Says who? You and Norman Schwartcopf? How come you like ole Norman when you and he are in agreement, and not when you disagree? Don't you agree, even as a liberal, that we should prioritize defending the country? Not at the exclusion of everything else. Like I said perviously, liberals see everything conservatives do but don't come to the same conclusions. You seem to think that only conservatives want to hold onto their skins and live a long life. Well, let me assure you so do Saddam and long jim......they're not about to push so hard that their deaths are inevitable. However, that is not the same mindset of a religious ideologue like OBL......and that's why I worry. Rel. ideologues welcome death as the fulfillment of their destiny. We need to be afraid of only one person......OBL. The American military was in no danger of falling apart under Clinton except in the fantastical nightmares of the Right. Norman Schwarzkopf disagreed with you last week on Hardball. According to him, Clinton left the military in "terrible condition". Terrible condition to ole Norman S. means not having millions of the newest and latest; only thousands! The American military is a very fat cat who has very high expectations, and of course, they are going to start crying to every conservative who will listen.......which is most of you. They are playing you all for the defense chumps that you are. The rest of the world could do very well by our military leftovers. ted