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: Dayuhan who wrote (76366)	10/10/2004 11:15:06 PM
From: abstract	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793727

In hindsight it is pretty easy to see that you that if Clinton's intelligence had been better, if his responses to attacks had been appropriate, if he hadn't been distracted by "affairs" of state, one would hope he wouldn't have shrunk (modified) the military the way he did. Our military, our country, was ill-prepared for what was on the horizon and in an ideal world it could have been anticipated. Back in the late '80's, before anyone else, Oliver North said Osama bin Laden was the person who scared him more than any other person on earth. Someone should have found out why.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (76366)	10/11/2004 12:02:28 AM
From: Neeka	Respond to of 793727

709,000 REGULAR (ACTIVE DUTY) PERSONNEL. 293,000 RESERVE TROOPS . EIGHT STANDING ARMY DIVISIONS. 20 AIR FORCE AND NAVY AIR WINGS WITH 2,000 COMBAT AIRCRAFT. All of these elements of our military could have been utilized in Afghanistan and Iraq. Troops can be retrained to fight in different situations....that is what makes our military so powerful. The addition of that many more troops and combat aircraft......not to mention a serious upgrading of old, outdated aircraft including helicopters.......could have made the difference between life and death for some of the troops serving in the ME. I don't have an argument for the rest, but cutting back the troops hasn't helped imo. The left has been screaming for months that there aren't enough boots on the ground in either place. Which is it?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (76366)	10/11/2004 5:16:50 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793727

What I find interesting to consider, and a position for obvious reasons no one is willing to admit, is we purposely allowed open borders after the Iraq invasion to entice terrorist elements to come and fight us there. Now we have Iraqi's killing terrorist cells. As the months progress, more and more Iraqi's will be battling terrorists along with us. Consider this, politically we couldn't go into Iraq, Syria, Libya and Saudi Arabia to directly get at many of these elements, but we knew they would come to Iraq if given the opportunity. There, we take them out one group after another. Interesting systems thinking model to consider. Since this war was unlike any we have ever fought before.