Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JinnKai
I don't count Rezko's association as anything but conserative slander alike with Wright's association, as a away to attack a man through his associates' behavior.
But the "advocacy of preemptive military strikes and increasing the US military ground forces by 90,000 personnel" I'd like to see. Got a link?
|
I did a thread here on this...criticizing the stances of all three democratic candidates, at that time in the campaign:
Barak is quoted from an article attributed to him, published 9 months ago in the CFR magazine. It's in the second to last quote box in this OP:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ip+barak+obama
Quote:
From the second page of Obama's CFR magazine article, in the last two paragraphs:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200707...eadership.html
....We must use this moment both to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future. . . . We should expand our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the army and 27,000 marines. . . .
I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened.....
|
There were replies defending Obama for wanting to "rebuild our worn out military". He wants to withdraw our troops from Iraq, ASAP. Most will come home, some will be reassigned to duty in Afghanistan. I am not at all clear as to how a plan to add 92,000 ground troops to the current existing forces would "rebuild" our military. Wouldn't that be accomplished by bringing 90,000 of the troops now in Iraq home to rest and recover, and by shipping some of their equipment back to the US be overhauled, repaired, and maintained, and by replacing what is not returned or is beyond repair?
Wouldn't the costs of increasing the size of the ground force by 92,000, nearly 20 percent more, along with the costs of rebuilding the worn out physical plant and for caring for the returning troops, trigger even higher, fixed costs of the military, i.e., a permanently escalating budget?
And the idea of
Quote:
|
.....to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened..........
|
Didn't we always have a policy against preemptive use of force, because it avoided situations like invading a country that was found not to have WMD or WMD programs, and was not the "imminent threat" to our national security that we were assured that it was?