On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 11:18:47PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 12:40:36AM -0600, DvB wrote:
> > Once again, if cutting taxes is going to put the government $300B in the
> > hole, they need to cut some programs and I don't think there're many
> > that can be justified being cut.
>
> Considering the military accounts for over 40% of government spending,
> I think we found a place to start trimming fat heavily. Especially if
> our politicians are going to keep claiming we're a peace-loving
> nation. Peace-loving nations don't spend damn near half thier money
> on a military.
Only if said peace loving nation sees no potential for conflict.
Some nations avoid conflict. This may make them peace loving, or in
may make them cowards. I'd like to believe that the world could live
together in a peaceful fashion as envisioned by, among other, Ghandi,
but so far we haven't had much luck with that. Thus, many nations
have concluded that the surest path to peace is a strong deterrent.
Ever heard the terms "pax romana" and "pax britannica"?
I love the liberals who have no qualms about sending the military to
important, strategic places like Somalia and Bosnia, cut the funding
for the military at the same time, and then raise holy hell when
something goes wrong. Why, it almost seems hypocritical.
Look at a map of Asia from 1980. See that large (usually green)
country labeled "USSR"? It no longer exists in large part because it
could not keep up in the spending race (military and scientific) it
found itself in.
Oh by the way, I believe you'll find that the social programs consume
more budget dollars than any other program; I'm sure you're ready to
make cuts there as well?
--
Nathan Norman - Incanus Networking mailto:nnorman@incanus.net
Just because an idea originated at "redhat" does not mean it is evil.
-- Sean 'Shaleh' Perry
Attachment:
pgpcxEvCbfjnz.pgp
Description: PGP signature