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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (633221)	9/27/2004 1:14:46 AM
From: puborectalis	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

US 'must raise troop numbers' to fulfil commitments By Peter Spiegel in London Published: September 26 2004 22:43 \| Last updated: September 26 2004 22:43 A Pentagon-appointed panel has found that the US military will not be able to maintain its current peacekeeping commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan without a significant increase in the size of the armed forces or scaling back the objectives of the stabilisation missions. A report by the respected Defence Science Board was presented to Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, late last month. Mr Rumsfeld found the study compelling and ordered it to be presented earlier this month to all the uniformed chiefs of the four armed services as well as the military's combatant commanders, who oversee each of the Pentagon's six regional commands. Although the report, first disclosed in the newsletter Inside the Pentagon, has not been made public, pages from the study reviewed by the Financial Times state that while some of the stresses on the US military could be mitigated by private contractors and improved technologies, such measures are unlikely to be sufficient. "It is not clear that our new stabilisation capabilities will suffice if we maintain the current pace of stabilisation operations," the study says. The report, entitled Transition to and from Hostilities, could re-ignite the debate over the size of the US military, particularly the army, which many analysts warn is becoming overworked and stretched thin by repeated rotations through Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr Rumsfeld has largely resisted moves to enlarge the army, although he has given General Peter Schoomaker, army chief of staff, permission for a temporary increase of 30,000 soldiers. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate, has made increasing the military by 40,000 troops one of the main planks of his national security plan. He has also recently warned that the Bush administration could re-institute a draft after the November elections. The report was discussed briefly in a congressional hearing last week, where Mr Rumsfeld described it as "a good one". Congressional critics, however, used it to denounce his reluctance to back army enlargement. "I think the major point, the one I think the Defence Science Board concludes with, is that we have put ourselves in a strategic position where we may not be able to respond to obvious threats that we're seeing today," said Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat on the armed services committee. The Defence Science Board, founded in the 1950s, is made up of leading academics and experts appointed to examine science, technology and research issues that could affect security policy. The report recommends that in addition to "adding substantial force structure" or scaling back operations, the Pentagon could reorganise the military to reduce combat capabilities and increase forces trained for peacekeeping. Another option is to "depend on others", including the UN or other countries.

To: tejek who wrote (633221)	9/27/2004 6:20:18 AM
From: JDN	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

If you are going to talk about Grandfathers, suggest you look up the antics of KENNEDY's Grandfather, now theres a guy that was TOTALLY in bed with the Nazi's. Not to mention illegal activities here at home. jdn ps: There were plenty of German/American families that did NOT want the USA to get into war with Germany during WWII. Pearl Harbor CHANGED all of that. My family also was against the war until after Pearl Harbor, then ALL 3 OF MY BROTHERS ENLISTED, one only being 14 years old and lied about his age, one being 16 years old and needed my parents consent, the last being 18. Have you ever contributed to this countries freedom? jdn

To: tejek who wrote (633221)	9/27/2004 7:36:13 AM
From: PROLIFE	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Grandfather, huh?? Well...let's be sure not to elect Bush's grandfather to the office then, ok?

To: tejek who wrote (633221)	9/27/2004 8:33:07 AM
From: steve harris	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

lol, Bush's grandfather versus kerry going to Paris and meeting with the Vietcong. frontpagemag.com kerry should be in jail for treason! Late May or early June, 1970 -- John and Julia Kerry travel to Paris on a private trip. Kerry meets with Madam Win Thi Binh, the Foreign Minister of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of Vietnam (PRG) -- the political wing of the Vietcong -- and with representatives of Hanoi who were in Paris for the peace talks. cnsnews.com John Kerry is his own words! Kerry explained to Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman J. William Fulbright in a question and answer session on Capitol Hill a year after his Paris meetings that the war needed to be stopped "immediately and unilaterally." Then Kerry added, "I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government (PVR)." However, both of the delegations to which Kerry referred were communist. Neither included the U.S. allied, South Vietnamese or any members of the U.S. delegation. The Democratic Republic of Vietnam was the government of the North Vietnamese communists and the Provisional Revolutionary Government was an arm of the North Vietnamese government that included the Vietcong. A vote for kerry is a vote for the communists! Are you a communist ted?

To: tejek who wrote (633221)	9/27/2004 9:20:49 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

LOL!! This story has been discredited so many times...right here on these boards...you've got to be a world class moron to post it again....... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

To: tejek who wrote (633221)	9/27/2004 9:51:06 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

While there is no suggestion that Prescott Bush was sympathetic to the Nazi cause, the documents reveal that the firm he worked for, Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), acted as a US base for the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler in the 1930s before falling out with him at the end of the decade. The Guardian has seen evidence that shows Bush was the director of the New York-based Union Banking Corporation (UBC) that represented Thyssen's US interests and he continued to work for the bank after America entered the war. Thyssen did not merely have a "falling out", he was exiled from Germany in 1935, and lost most of his assets, due to his opposition to the Nazi Party. (He had not taken seriously Nazi anti- semitism until after the Party came to power, and was appalled. Also, his wife was Jewish.)He came to the United States and became a prominent anti- Nazi speaker. The assets that were held after the outbreak of war mainly belonged to Thyssen's siblings, neither of whom was particularly political, but both of whom were, after all, German.