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 : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (5658)	7/14/2003 3:23:33 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 15991

But in the case of Papa Bush and Clinton, I think they used the right degree. Don't you think? Hmm... the former I would agree with. The latter I'm finding it difficult to defend since it was his administration that cut defense spending by 40%, yet increased operational tempo of the military by at least 100%, with forces deployed all over the place performing peace-keeping missions. I can't think of any cases where his administration didn't play direct roles in the deployment of these troops. But that might be a bit of bias on my part.. However, that's a bias also shared by many of the men and women in uniform during that period. I departed after 14 years of military service primarily as a direct result of Clinton's budget cuts and sabotaging readiness. But once again.. If I'm President, and I give an order to accomplish a certain goal, I'm not going to expect my subordinates to rely upon my permission on how they go about carrying that mission once I've set the initial parameters (concern for civilian loss of life.. etc).. I expect them to initiate operations until the mission is accomplished of the strategic scenario requires I adjust my original directives. Hawk