Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan
He'd spend the cash on drones, warships, tech and missiles.
There's no reason to have a big conventional army any more, other than to be the UN's police force
- CM ... Isn't it amusing and amazing to read such uninformed crapolla from someone who calls himself Liberalman and boasts a picture of Peter Waterhole, the Godfather of public debt in Canada, as his avatar?
- Yes, you are correct about the different kind of military needed these days with the emphasis on high tech weaponry rather than low tech boots on the ground.
- I should also add that the US draft was ended by a Republican president (Nixon around 1970), that no president from either party would commit political suicide by reinstituting the draft, and that the purpose of maintaining the US's military superiority is not so as to engage in more wars but to prevent or at least reduce the likelihood of more wars by what Ronald Reagan called peace through strength. Weakness is more provocative militarily than strength and it is instructive that every major war involving the US in the past 100 years has been initiated while the Democrats were in power. But Liberalman like his idol Peter Waterhole has contempt for the military, would like to weaken it even more and faster than Obama is doing in the US, thinks that a strong military (e.g. Switzerland) always means more wars and so is spreading left wing misinformation about Romney's military policy.