posted on July 10, 2001 12:49:47 AM new
In an article filled with interesting tidbits about the working of the pork barrel and an exposition of the 'republican think' politics of the dumbya administration, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld flat out admits that war would aid the republican goals.
posted on July 10, 2001 07:41:23 AM new
Another example of how Bush's Non-Deployment of Campaign Promises is shaping up for the millitary and everyone else. Looks as if they are talking about rescinding the Temporary Tax Relief bill.
posted on July 10, 2001 12:21:05 PM new
War! What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing!!!
That was another song of the time, and it became my mantra until my history, government and economics instructors took my glasses off (the ones with those pretty rose lenses) and put them on the floor and each took a turn at stomping them into powder!
posted on July 10, 2001 02:52:09 PM new
Every republican president needs a war, so most of them manufacture one. It's good for their hawkish image of themselves and more importantly it's good for their shareholders.
posted on July 10, 2001 04:24:44 PM newI guess this means that plans for the battlefield in space will be put on the back burner
The USA, Russia, China, Great Britian, and France could each build a gaint "Battle Bot", and turn 'em loose on the moon. We could then sit on the back porch and safely watch the war, just like on the 1600's.
Who Need's a stink'n Sig. File?
posted on July 11, 2001 06:12:19 PM new
A Republican president does not necessarily mean an increased liklihood of a war. During Bush (the 1st one) the major military conflicts were Panama and the Gulf War. During Clinton (of course, was over 8 years) we had more major deployments or conflicts: Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, Somalia, Iraq, Taiwan straights, Guatanamo Bay. Of course, most of these were peace-keeping deployments; however, they can just as easily get you killed.
posted on July 11, 2001 10:35:43 PM new
What most people are unaware of is just how important war is to the military. For an officer to get promoted beyond a certain level, they need official combat experience. Every president is obliged to get us into some small actions fairly often in order to placate the leadership in the military. Occasionally, a good sized war comes along and everyone involved who survives does great and the president at the time is usually enshrined in history from a military stand-point. I always thought that this was the real reason why the military was angry at Clinton for not sending in the troops for a land war in Serbia. The Air Farce got to participate and the Apache helicopters got technical credit just for showing up in a neighboring province. The Republican politicians cast their doomsday scenario on Clinton only because it gave FoxNews more garbage to air. I only wonder who Bush is going to pick on? He'll need to do a Grenada or two by early next Spring or the military is NOT going to support him politically (that's their usual tactic played when they don't get action often enough for them -- they pout and become unsupportive of White House plans for anything that affects them -- until the president relents and sends in the troops someplace).
