Which is more important? Less spending or saving lives?

[Salome]

Originally posted by STING2:
but these are not normal times with a war and a recession happening at the same time. Oh and despite the poverty that does exist in the USA, the USA was #6 in UNs latest list of the highest standards of living in the world, well ahead of many of the lovely European countries.

I demand a stop to all this blatant Europe bashing that is always going on over here!

by the way, officially we still don't have a recesion

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

[melon]

Originally posted by STING2:
Certainly no one wants to attack another country if it does not need to for regional and world security, but if something needs to be done, you have to be ready and prepared to do so. Otherwise regional and global security is put in danger. The problems will not go away by staying isolated or uninvolved. When and if military action is needed in the countries mentioned above, it should be done swiftly and with the best technology and training available.

Well, I have moderated on this issue, with the realization that periodic improvements are necessary. So, as much as Reagan's domestic policies were fucked up beyond all hell, I will give him credit for modernizing the military. Anything that can make warfare more precise and less bloody is a good investment.

What does bother me, though, is that Republicans tend to not know when enough is enough in regards to military spending. Hence, Reagan gave us our several trillion dollar debt, with most due to his military expansion.

I agree it is time to modernize the way our military operates, but I still disagree with the missile shield. It is too expensive to create, too experimental in that we don't know if it can be made (just like the SDI in the 1980s), and it will cost a fortune to maintain, not to mention likely to provoke a global arms race. Let's look at it this way: say that Europe built a missile shield, stating the "need for defense against rogue nations." Would the U.S. then say "okay" and let it at that? No, they'd build their own missile shield, probably also trying to build one that can penetrate Europe's shield. And so on, and so on.

I'm also not convinced that there is really a high-tech threat that warrants one. Sure, we currently have low-tech threats, such as hijackings and suicide bombers, etc., but a missile shield won't do shit against low-tech threats. But, most certainly, once that shield is built, I'm sure those "rogue nations" will create a missile program sufficient enough to test it. Will we be happy at that point? At this rate, it appears it will be the United States, not the Soviet Union, who will create another Cold War.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[STING2]

There are two different area's when it comes to missile defense. One is Theater missile defense which is mainly missile defense for troops in the field and the other would be national missile defense. National missile defense is probably not needed at the moment, missile defense for troops in the field certainly is which is what I support. The National Missile Defense system while expensive is not the missile defense system that was envisioned in the 1980s. It is designed for an attack that involves 10s of missiles not ten to twenty thousand missiles. Thats a huge difference.
We would not have a problem with Europe building a missile shield for several reasons. One, it would provided security for US and NATO forces in the region, two it would provide security for a region that is one of the largest trading partners of the USA and when it comes to security has been consider apart of the USA for the past 50 years through NATO. There would not be any need to penatrate a shield by Europe because that would be like stabbing yourself. But if you want to be absurd about it, due to the size of the US Nuclear arsenal, no other nation, including ourselves, could build a missile defense system that could defeat are arsonal.

[Whortense]

i wish i could delete my own messages

[This message has been edited by Whortense (edited 01-31-2002).]

[melon]

Originally posted by STING2:
We would not have a problem with Europe building a missile shield for several reasons.

Well, Europe was an example. Let's say that China built a missile shield. I'm sure my scenario would be true.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time