Missile Defense?

I'm probably not a good responder, since I favor a highly-aggressive military posture; missile defense is an absolute necessity, regardless of the cost. The stakes are too high to be "under-insured" in this area.

 

The first and most important function of the Federal Government is defense of the country. In fact that is one of the few Constitutional duties of the Federal Government. Unfortunately starting with FDR the socialist-democrats have convinced the majority of the American people that the first responsibility of the Federal Government is to keep the trough full. For those who don't know a trough is where you slop the hogs!

 

Remember when all those lily livered democrats said it could not be done?

 

The elected officials are too busy lining their own pockets to be worried about frivolous things like a missle defense system. Besides, they would just sell the plans and technology to China anyway in the interest of Free World Trade, so the whole idea is moot.

 

I agree with LadyEagle! wait.. did we just agree on something?!?


Jamie

 

Can we spell 300 billion dollars and rising boys and girls .. bush/cheney sold us that the war in iraq now civil war could be done on the cheap..in fact they fired one of their own , who dared to mention 200 billion.

Not until one of you right wing Monday morning
QB actually feel the crunch of a trillion dollar war and billions of dollars in missile defense you will change your tune ..you always do
once you feel the pain.

Never ever will a military industrial complex win us friends out of respect perhaps a few out of fear but they will secretly hate us and bush seems to fall into that ..he does not care or is curious at all he will be long gone just like his business failures and military failures and personal life failures he was never brought to account he really is the spoiled frat boy run amuck.He has hurt this nation and the stench will linger once he leaves.

 

Waste of money. Bomb will come by air freight.

 

I don't fit in your category, ftr, but I am in favor of a missile defense system.

 

A Bush Hater to the core.

 

ASLANSPAL

Your talking about $$$$$.

Let me send you a picture of my kids. They are at least 300 billion dollars worth of cute.

If you are worried about $$$$$, lets cut 300 billion worth of socal handout programs that teach people to be dependent on the goverment instead of themselvs.

This goverment probably spends 300 billion funding art programs.

 

Oh, Let me fix that. People should learn to be dependent on the Lord, not the goverment or themselvs.

But if you are able bodied then I would take that as a good sign that the Lord has given you the privledge to work to put food on your own table.

 

Not until one of you right wing Monday morning QB actually feel the crunch of a trillion dollar war and billions of dollars in missile defense you will change your tune ..you always do

Sorry. As a disabled vet (Gulf War I) who lost his father to war, and now has one sister and two brothers-in-law in Iraq and Afghanistan, I am offended by your "Monday morning QB" implications. My family pays the blood tax, and doesn't just talk about it. I am certain that there are others in this forum who fit this category, also.

National defense is the first priority of a government, regardless of cost. Without it, there simply won't be anything else worth having.

 

I will give that a hearty AMEN!

 

First priority - absolutely. But there is a limit as to how much we can spend on defense. Therefore, we must spend as wisely as possible.

 

Don't you get it, Ken? The politicians don't give a hoot about spending wisely.

http://www.cagw.org

 

I think many wrongfully assume that just because someone is against the war in Iraq or "against an aggressive or forward-leaning American military posture around the world", that that person must be a liberal or anti military. That is so far from the truth! Many of the most conservative in the political arena are opposed to sending American troops into combat without a declaration of war by Congress, pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, while at the same time being some the the biggest supporters of strengthening our U.S. missile defense system.

Here are some excerpts from the Constitution Party platform on the issue of Defense:

It is a primary obligation of the federal government to provide for the common defense, and to be vigilant regarding potential threats, prospective capabilities, and perceived intentions of potential enemies.

We oppose unilateral disarmament and dismemberment of America's defense infrastructure. That which is hastily torn down will not be easily rebuilt.

The goal of U.S. security policy is to defend the national security interests of the United States.

We call for the maintenance of a strong, state-of-the-art military on land, sea, in the air, and in space. We urge the executive and legislative branches to continue to provide for the modernization of our armed forces, in keeping with advancing technologies and a constantly changing world situation. We call for the deployment of a fully-operational strategic defense system as soon as possible.

Source: Constitution Party National Platform

I like what Steve Bonta wrote in his book, Inside The United Nations:

"We will never live in a perfect world. We will never even be able to guarantee world peace, but we can encourage it by example. If we maintain a strong military to protect our freedom and independence, we will discourage would-be aggressors. If we avoid resorting to open war except when left with no other choice, we will set a powerful example for other nations, who will see the benefits of peace and will follow our lead."

 

I'd much rather see us spend the money on developing an effective Homeland Security defense. The first step in doing that would be to fire the know nothing bureaucrats that are currently wasting our money and providing us with no increase in security.

Electronic border defenses, real improvements on airline defense, securing our ports, and last but not least a stepped up program to secure the huge amount of Soviet nuclear material currently left almost unguarded.

Who's going to fire ICBM's at us? Not North Korea or Iran or Pakistan. They don't have the ability to deliver a nuclear warhead to the U.S. Russia is a possibility but greatly diminuished from the cold war days. I don't believe India is a threat.

Of course, if we don't start treating our former allies as friends we could get hit from way out in left field by somebody like France. I'd imagine they don't particularily like Bush's scheme to rule the world.

 

There are commercial freighters up and down our coast. Anyone of them would suffice for a missile platform, right into any city we have. So, any rogue state with obsolete missile technology could deliver an attack.

There were warnings about Japan's capabilities and intent for years before Pearl Harbor. Some of the people who warned the most were not only scorned, but suffered career losses. There were scoffers then, and there are scoffers now.