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: Ish who wrote (81544)10/28/2004 7:43:42 PM
From: carranza2  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793838
 
I agree with the theory of using smaller, more effective, technologically superior, units to fight the war. It works, saves money and lives, and therefore should be the norm.

However, the number and quality of troops used to fight the war are not the same required to secure the peace. A labor intensive mostly urban job that requires an intimidating presence.

Hope it works out. A lot is riding on us winning. I see it as a 50/50 proposition with Bush in place. Give it up and head for New Zealand or Hawaii if JFK2 is elected.



To: Ish who wrote (81544)10/28/2004 8:10:23 PM
From: ManyMoose  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793838
 
MANY small quick units, backed up by massive airpower would be my preference.

I would like to see us develop a force specifically designed to deal with the types of terrorism we are seeing now. I'm no expert on what that might be, but the ground force equivalent of stealth bombers is what I have in mind.


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