To: moshiach
I'm not totally convinced, but I do see some advantage to having a very small army.
Yes, we can still go in quickly, in a small way, to do small jobs.
Other than that, unfortunately, if you annoy us, we'll have to nuke you.
So don't p*ss us off.
3 posted on
07/18/2011 6:07:11 AM PDT by
ClearCase_guy
(The USSR spent itself into bankruptcy and collapsed -- and aren't we on the same path now?)
To: ClearCase_guy
Hahaha Like the way you think.
16 posted on
07/18/2011 7:03:46 AM PDT by
guardian_of_liberty
(We must bind the Government with the Chains of the Constitution...)
To: ClearCase_guy
It depends. I could get rid of a lot of useful units and add some very useful ones around the army.
Reductions for sake of reduction is wrong.
23 posted on
07/18/2011 8:03:18 AM PDT by
JudgemAll
(Democrats Fed. job-security Whorocracy & hate:hypocrites must be gay like us or be tested/crucified)
To: ClearCase_guy
It depends. I meant to say... I could get rid of a lot of USELESS welfare back adminstrative support units and add some very useful “on the beat” ones around the army. I am tired of seeing “leaders” who never carry a rifle, were never deployed or just go to those Support Units to move up administratively before sidestepping to front line units and acting like they always were Pattons from the get go.
Reductions for sake of reduction is wrong.
24 posted on
07/18/2011 8:05:32 AM PDT by
JudgemAll
(Democrats Fed. job-security Whorocracy & hate:hypocrites must be gay like us or be tested/crucified)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson