A. this is there presidency part 2 after all.
2007-09-18 06:46:20
·
answer #1
·
answered by Greg 7
·
9⤊
3⤋
Hopefully cut spending, withdraw all troops from combat zones and focus on the problems we Americans face. I could care less if an Iraqi gets democracy. Half the people don't even want it, they want an Islamic state. What country could stand up to our military if it was at half strength.....yeah none. So why waste billions to build it up? We are fighting an idea not an army, so no matter how fancy our planes get or better our weapons get we still will be fighting the same way and losing. Our country obviously needs a new direction not same ol BS from the republican side. So put away the ego and realize we lost so we can come home and lick our wounds. By the way Bush has done little to fund equipment for troops (armor). Private companies in Iraq are now using IEDproof vehicles, yes IEDproof, while our troops are riding around in humvees with canvas doors. Thank your government for putting $$$ over lives because while these IEDproof vehicles are expensive they could reduce the deaths in Iraq by 75%.
And why do we need a huge military? To repell an invasion from who???? What country would dare attack us???? Ask Japan how that worked out.
2007-09-18 07:33:54
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
A. She'll follow Bill's lead and gut them like a fish; She clearly demonstrated her distain for members of the military when she was the First Lady and there is absolutely no reason to believe she has changed one itoa in the last seven years. No member of the military in their right mind will vote for Hillary Clinton, it will be the kiss of death.
2007-09-18 07:39:11
·
answer #3
·
answered by oscarsix5 5
·
2⤊
1⤋
A) the fanciful social programs she favors will require an increase in tax revenue as well as a decrease in defense expenditures.I would be confident in saying that she would decrease military expenditures at least 25%the first year,15% the second year.No need to worry about the following years,after being unable to defend ourselves from attack,she will have surrendered this once great nation to the attackers.
2007-09-18 07:00:05
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
1⤋
C. Increase spending, increase manpower, fund new
equipment and weapons.
The next president will has no choice but, to undo the horror done to the world and our country by the OIL MAN PRESIDENT!
The military has been devastated by the Bush Oil Wars in Iraq and most of the world now considers us to be evil. We are between Iraq and a "hard place" because of the raiding of the US Treasury and devastation of our military. Most of the military equipment is worn out and will be left in Iraq so it must be replaced.
The Guard and Reserve are treated like active duty and paid like migrant farm workers from across the southern border. They can only earn 50 points(days) per year for retirement except for active duty in Iraq so it would take them 7.3 years to earn one year for retirement at age 60. Active duty retires with 20 years service at 2.5% per year.
"The War is For Real" at the link below was not written by a General, but is on target. The Iraq wars have really only been about oil and big profit not Terrorist.
In 1965 I saw the military's new vehicle that used water for fuel, but it just disapeared ... wonder why? Search for "water for fuel" and you will find lots of good infomation.
2007-09-18 07:34:06
·
answer #5
·
answered by Pey 7
·
0⤊
3⤋
Probably "A". Hillary is a leftover from the hippie-era '60's. She has a contempt for everything American, especially the military. If she doesn't "gut them like a fish", she'll probably have heterosexuals banned from the armed-forces, then dress all the recruits that are left in skirts. No heels, though. Wouldn't want to make Hillary look more like a man than she already does!
2007-09-18 06:52:17
·
answer #6
·
answered by rduke88 4
·
6⤊
2⤋
The same as any Democrat administration in the past. They will reduce the funds going to equipment , research and training and move it to domestic social programs.
Then when the Democrats get in a situation where the military is weak and the Americans vote in the Republicans again then they can say the Republicans are warmongers because they are increasing spending on the military again.
2007-09-18 06:49:35
·
answer #7
·
answered by RomeoMike 5
·
10⤊
3⤋
As the wife of a Marine (81-86) and a mother to a Marine and an Army Soldier, I pray she doesn't get into office. I feel this would be the worst thing for our country as a whole for her to get into office.
2007-09-18 07:02:42
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
None of the above. Current troop strengths have been slated by Herr Bush to decline before he ever leaves office. The "gutting" by WJ Clinton was a result of a vastly bloated defense infrastructure. As for the current budget, I think most people believe that the GW Bush administration has been "gutting" the federal budget to fund a highly inefficient, bloated offensive military engine. Chances are, that bloat will soon be flushed by Congressional hearings.
"The E'Ville Librarian"
2007-09-18 06:54:30
·
answer #9
·
answered by adiaphorus 2
·
1⤊
5⤋
I think she will make the best out of a BAD situation. Make an INFORMED decision based on FACT not on hearsay. And if the Republicans don't invent a "Whitewater" for her term she will do just fine.
2007-09-18 13:00:30
·
answer #10
·
answered by kitkatish1962 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
A. Then use the money to fund domestic projects. Most of that money will be given to the administrators of the projects, which are the ones funding her campaign.
2007-09-18 06:50:52
·
answer #11
·
answered by gregory_dittman 7
·
7⤊
1⤋