It is well understood that the "peace dividend" started under the first Bush. It is also a fact that the Clinton administration joyfully continued it, accounting for a large percentage of any "cuts" in Federal spending. It is also a fact that until 9/11, the current Bush saw no particular need to reverse any of this trend. Bush is not going to be able to change anything now, since his opposition is now so deranged that they will support absolutely nothing he proposes, good or bad. I'm hoping the next President sees that a strong military is critical, even if it doesn't seem to be important when things are quiet.
It is also understood that the radical Left has hated the military with every fiber of its being for a very long time. A lot of people involved in that movement, particularly in the Vietnam heyday, are now in the leadership of the Democratic Party. If you want to argue that point, better start by naming names. Who do you see as President from that party that would support a truly stronger military?
If I have to tread carefully, it's because of my audience. I often say that most big questions have simple answers. The reason things get complicated is because they aren't the answers people want to hear.
Current Events » in reply to Stealth mode: run silent, run deep
Tell me, is there anything I could write here that won't drive someone nuts?
The whole thread (49 posts)
- Absolutely devastating, from "Time". America's Broken-Down Army
- A commentary on this
- Somehow I don't think you would like what it would take to win.
- Where are my eagles?
- Don't be shy, tell us what you really feel
- The "Peace Dividend."
- re: The military is not the solution anymore
- Give peace a chance
- Stealth mode: run silent, run deep
- Now explain that in light of Bush's 6 years of getting everything for which he's asked.
- The "Peace Dividend."
- Don't be shy, tell us what you really feel