Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

We Need to Strengthen Our Military. Thoughts?

We need a new military to meet the new threats of the 21st Century. Today's American military is the best in the world, but tomorrow's military must be even better. It must be stronger, faster, better armed.

Expand America's active duty forces.

Add 40,000 new soldiers to sustain our overseas deployments and prevent and prepare for other possible conflicts.

We need to create a "New Total Force," a military prepared to defeat any enemy, at any time, in any place.

We also need more military police, because public order is critical to establishing the conditions that allow peace to take hold.

We need the best possible equipment. We can't have a 21st century military unless we're using 21st century technology and preparing our forces for 21st century threats. That means educating, training, and arming every soldier with state-of-the-art equipment, whether body armor or weapons. It also means employing the most sophisticated communications to help our troops prevail and protect themselves in battle. Every soldier in every unit should have access to technology that can mean the difference between life and death.

Build and train new forces equipped with the most-sophisticated technology to specialize in finding, securing, and destroying weapons of mass destruction and the facilities that build them.

---

Thoughts?

EDIT: See my post below on who really wrote what I posted above.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Hanging2 · 56-60, M
Sigh...

Wouldn't it be great if diplomacy and a greater corroboration between people could occur so there would not be the need for this.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@Hanging2 Diplomacy is a great tool for positive collaboration.

Maybe this, though, is the fallback plan? Think Pelosi would go for it?
Hanging2 · 56-60, M
Being an Australian I am not all over US politics. But from this distance Pelosi looks like he would be in favour.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@Hanging2

Nancy Pelosi is the (Democratic) House Minority Leader.


She is likely to be Speaker of the House - again - if the Democrats win the midterms.
Hanging2 · 56-60, M
@beckyromero That is one forced smile. I wonder if that hurt?
beckyromero · 36-40, F
Not my first choice to be Speaker if the Dems win the mid-terms. But she has the caucus wrapped around her little finger.
Hanging2 · 56-60, M
@beckyromero I find the concept of Mod term elections very interesting. Why does this happen?
Why not have all the elections during the presidential race and cut the costs of democracy?
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@Hanging2 Our Constitution requires that seats for all Members in the House and one-third of the Senate are held every two years. It's called "mid-terms" because it is at the mid-point of the president's four-year term.

It's not going to change. Constitutional amendments are very difficult to pass.

But it does give voters a change to make a mid-term course correction if they don't like how the president's party is behaving in Congress. Or sometimes his party is punished just for how HE is behaving.
Hanging2 · 56-60, M
@beckyromero Its almost like buyers remorse. It gives you a chance to change the underwear you have on.

Its like here. Referendum seldom get up.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
😀 Great analogy!
samueltyler2 · 80-89, M
@beckyromero forget for the moment about the military, immigration, even taxes and pay attention to the degree of corruption, at an historical peak! Sure, society may be better at finding it, but how many cabinet members are under a veil of misuse of federal funds and conflicts of interest? A fish rots from the head back, look at the conflicts of interest from the top down! What does it take to get those committing such inappropriate uses if funds out of office?
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@samueltyler2
the degree of corruption, at an historical peak!

Not saying things are not good.

But read about Crédit Mobilier sometime.
samueltyler2 · 80-89, M
@beckyromero yes, that was bad, as have been others, but, 1) I am talking about the president and his cabinet 2) this administration has only been there for 16 months and 3) the association with foreign governments and investors is probably unlawful as well.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@samueltyler2 Hopefully, he'll be just a one-termer.