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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: abstract who wrote (75715)	10/8/2004 9:57:54 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793914

Sure, if you don't pay for the things you need, you can pretend that you have a surplus, but eventually you'll have to spend the money anyway. If you imagine that the military isn't necessary, you're in the same category as John Lennon. Imagine that there are no terrorists, while you're at it.

To: abstract who wrote (75715)	10/8/2004 10:08:58 AM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793914

Yes Clinton shrunk the military. Before September 2001 how many new soldiers were conscripted/enlisted to rectify the "shortfall" generated by Clinton? BREAKING NEWS. The US Military Draft has been terminated effective Thanksgiving, 1973. The last draftees are to be discharged within two years of the effective date.

To: abstract who wrote (75715)	10/8/2004 10:12:33 AM
From: MrLucky	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793914

I can see you like it when someone challenges what you say or offers a different viewpoint. It is apparent to me that you with agree with the clinton decisions regarding the military. I don't. There is a cost for every decision in DC. It just so happens that one of them (down sizing) was made by clinton. I am not aware of any war that the USA has fought and kept a balanced budget. Perhaps you can point one out to me. We are in a war with terrorists right now. Don't plan on a balanced anytime soon. Whether you and I agree on the war doesn't matter. What matters is that the muslim terrorists have issued the wake up call to the USA. It has taken many years and several presidents, but we now know we are in the most serious war of our lifetimes. I am not in favor of a draft. Neither are over 400 of the Congress who voted down the Rangel proposal a few days ago. However, if a draft is required in the future to fully destroy these terrorists then this country had better be willing to pay the price. Is that enough doublespeak for you?

To: abstract who wrote (75715)	10/8/2004 11:10:06 AM
From: SBHX	Respond to of 793914

If you think about it, the smug period post-dissolution of the iron curtain coincided with the start of the rapidly accelerated decrease in military and intelligence spending by not only the US, but UK, France, Canada and any country who used to have a usable almost working submarine lying around in a port, somewhere. In hindsight, the fact that there were no deep cover operatives within the islamic jihadist movement coupled with clearly insufficient and overwhelmed analysts poring over the tons of hard data were the real reason that the intelligence on 9/11 was 'missing in action'. That everyone was scrambling to fill in gaps everywhere both in the military and spyland was clear for all to see, and some noble souls did answer the call voluntarily. In hindsight, given the paranoia post 9/11, everybody had disaster scenarios everywhere, with mushroom clouds, sarin, anthrax worries on all the news channels. The media did their own flag waving for sure, but they also did a grand job of pushing panic buttons about sabotage of nuclear stations, about unprotected sea ports and cargo containers and briefcases of dirty bombs. Given the deep paranioa of those days, is it any wonder that the intelligence community analysts would be reluctant to express doubts on any iota of worrisome data if it had a shred of real danger on it?