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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: tejek who wrote (363263)12/17/2007 4:19:00 PM
From: combjelly  Respond to of 1586543
 
"I guess we really need a national debate on what exactly we all mean by a strong military and under what circumstances, do we go to war."

I agree. In my opinion, they have shown they can misuse their power. I think Afghanistan was justified, especially if we had provided the aid we promised.

I don't think Iraq was.

" What 'glue' can hold a nation together when the disagreements are so basic and run so deep?"

Acceptance of differences is a start. We have always been a diverse country. And we have had periods of divisiveness. Perhaps the worst was the Civil War.



To: tejek who wrote (363263)12/17/2007 5:53:02 PM
From: bentway  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1586543
 
"For me, a strong military means one that is roughly half the size of the current one. For me, the military should be used sparingly......primarily for the defense of the homeland; occasionally in a joint policing action with other nations. That peace time should really be a time when the country is at peace and not where there is peace in the homeland but the military is fighting in some distant war. "

I agree with your view. I'd also like to take away the ability of the President to launch a war on his own. The President should only be able to respond immediately if we are attacked. Congress should be the one that deliberates and declares war. This shoud be determined by the Supremes so there is no wiggle room.