SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Carolyn who wrote (76345)10/10/2004 10:07:42 PM
From: Dayuhan  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793732
 

THESE ARE THE AMERICAN MILITARY FORCES THAT WERE ELIMINATED DURING THE ADMINISTRATION OF BILL CLINTON AND AL GORE.

Do you really think that it would have been reasonable, or affordable, to maintain the force level needed to contain the Soviet Union in the post-Soviet era?

Do you really think that ballistic missile submarines, ICBMs, and nuclear warheads would be of any substantial use in fighting the war on terror?



To: Carolyn who wrote (76345)10/10/2004 10:31:21 PM
From: Neeka  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 793732
 
I think it hurt our ability to fight the WOT by eliminating so many vital elements of our military.

In hindsight.......these were bad moves, but in all fairness, we didn't think we needed such defenses after the cold war was won.

Clinton and Gore were certainly not war hawks, but what with the several attacks on our military compounds, and the WTC bombing1, they didn't perceive the threat that was building during their tenure, which left us vulnerable.

jmo


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News