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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (68925)	5/28/2008 6:54:26 AM
From: KonKilo	Respond to of 542155

Fewer planes, ships and soldiers. Seriously - to fund the entitlements it is absolutely necessary. Or maybe smarter spending of the already stupendous amounts of money we devote to the military. It will then follow that we will have to reduce our presence on the world stage. I think that is a very good thing. We are in agreement here.

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (68925)	5/30/2008 5:57:13 AM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542155

>>"Could you define what you mean by "disarming" so that we are on the same page?" Fewer planes, ships and soldiers.<< Bob - When Bush said that Saddam Hussein must disarm, did he mean Saddam had to reduce the number of WMDs he supposedly had? No. That's not what he meant. That's not what disarming means. Having fewer planes, ships, and soldiers, even if it were going to happen, would not be the same as disarming. Another important point is that large armies aren't especially effective at combating terrorists, as we've seen. Israel, by the way, has fewer planes, ships, and soldiers than we have, yet even though they are surrounded by enemies who have sworn to destroy them, they continue to exist. - Allen