Anyone still vote to decrease military spending? Didn't think so.

[brxndxn]

The larger the military, the less of a chance you will have to use it. The smaller you let it get, the more it will look tempting.

This OT board seems to have gone from 60% liberal/40% conservative to 90% conservative/10% liberal... Is everyone going to switch back when peace and prosperity begin again?


I hope we develop a missile defense shield. I hope we also bring things to an end in the east. I hope we overthrow defiant governments and set them up with a Constitution like ours - like we did with Japan. I hope we get rid of the rulers that spread anti-US sentiment.

 

[SmackdownHotel]

So now basically America has the right to storm into whatever country it deems "unfit," and overthrow the government? I think not.

 

[jehh]

yea, basicly it does...

 

I don't believe we need a huge army.

This is a technical age, not one of body shields.

 

[HOWITIS]

when someone sends over a technical bomb, u build a technical body shield to stop it.

 

[CJZ]

Do we really need a missle defense shield? I don't think so. I'd be much happier if that money went to streamlining and modernizing the armed forces or increasing the staff (too few field officers currently) of the intelligence services.

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

<< I don't believe we need a huge army.

This is a technical age, not one of body shields. >>



that's why the Iraqi invasion accomplished getting Saddam out of power right?

 

[LoneWolf1]

<< Do we really need a missle defense shield? I don't think so. >>


Yes we do need a Missle Defense Shield. The cold war may be over, but with the fall of the Soviet Union, there is an ever growing threat of attack by a fenatical(sp?) dictator of some far off third world country.

 

[hoe4damoney]

The only purpose of a missile defense shield is to defend the US the enemies it has made by heavy handed intervention in other countries.

spend the money on better relations with other countries and dont start another cold war.

 

[gooseman]

The only thing I would ever vote for a tax increase on is a larger military budget. Period.

 

[Marshy]

I think hoe4damoney has the right idea,

If america stopped interferring and forcing its views onto other countries, then it wouldn't have so many enemies!

America is one big propaganda machine, Americans get force fed so much bull, they believe they are the only 'good guys' in the world. So nead all this defence from the 'bad guys'

basically reduce the miltary budget,
:disgust:

 

[gooseman]

Marshy, are you saying that all these other countries are not "force fed" propaganda every day? Think about it, what country in the world doesn't think that they are the only "good guys"?

 

[gopunk]

actually if anything, this incident points out the problem in the way the military handles their money, in the way the conservatives like. in a nutshell - lots of good a missile shield did us.

you're forgetting that this operation was executed by men armed with some training, knives, and box cutters.

 

[gopunk]

that's why the Iraqi invasion accomplished getting Saddam out of power right?

yea, we must of won that one by sheer numbers.... *cough*.

it was the planes and the tanks...

 

[jehh]

<< actually if anything, this incident points out the problem in the way the military handles their money, in the way the conservatives like. in a nutshell - lots of good a missile shield did us.

you're forgetting that this operation was executed by men armed with some training, knives, and box cutters. >>



True, but SAM missile batteries near important targets would have done the trick... but of course we don't like SAM batteries in our cities...

If they rebuilt the towers, they'd be nuts not to put them on top...

Jason

 

[gopunk]

True, but SAM missile batteries near important targets would have done the trick... but of course we don't like SAM batteries in our cities...

If they rebuilt the towers, they'd be nuts not to put them on top...

or at least somewhere close, i'm not sure if they'd be best put on top. i wouldn't know though. but yea, like i said, it's in how the money is spent. there has always been conflict over whether the money should go towards traditional military institutions such as general infantry, planes and whatnot, but i think this event shows that the enemy of the future is not some superpower, but rather very determined guys who are trained for the sole purpose of taking out a ton of civilians.

 

[sandorski]

Hmm, SAM missile batteries? How's that going to work? Or, how exactly would it have done any good in this tragedy? Are you willing to down every civilian plane that's in the wrong place, just because? Will you put a SAM missile battery in every city?

It is almost assured that the next terrorist attack will be completely different, ie not the same. NMD, urban SAM sites, and other gimicky "if only we had this, that would not have happened" systems are a waste of money. If nothing else is gleened from these terrorist attacks it should be this one truth, the US is as vulnerable to attack as any other nation. Technology, weapons systems, military might, and anything else you may like to cite do not assure you security, aka, you are not invulnerable and never can be.

Just look at the computer software world. Everytime Microsoft or someone else developes a "security" device/scheme, someone else hacks/cracks or just gets around it. The same thing applies to terrorists, they will always find a way to terrorize. Perhaps the trick isn't in thwarting terrorist attacks(although that's always good to do), rather it seems best to not have people so pissed off at you that they want to commit terrorist acts.

 

[gopunk]

It is almost assured that the next terrorist attack will be completely different, ie not the same. NMD, urban SAM sites, and other gimicky "if only we had this, that would not have happened" systems are a waste of money. If nothing else is gleened from these terrorist attacks it should be this one truth, the US is as vulnerable to attack as any other nation. Technology, weapons systems, military might, and anything else you may like to cite do not assure you security, aka, you are not invulnerable and never can be.

DUH. nobody has ever said america was invulnerable or that we could make it such. the point is to be as prepared as you can be.

 

[flavio]

<< Anyone still vote to decrease military spending? Didn't think so. >>



Military spending has no relation to the terrorist attacks. Stop using this crisis as an opportunity to push other unrelated agendas.

 

[sandorski]

Gopunk: That's exactly my point, you can not be prepared. With the exception of finding and arresting the would be terrorists before they carry out their act(s).

 

[TRUMPHENT]

A missile defense shield would be as effective as relieving one's bladder northward in a 40mph southbound wind. Maybe if the money got a little more efficient, it would not take new funding. Senator Lott has a new helicopter carrier being built that the Navy does not want or need. The Osprey abominination has already sucked down a billion dollars for a piece of crap that is unairworthy much less combat worthy.