What's the #1 issue for you?
Find a Conversation
What's the #1 issue for you?
| Sun, 10-26-2008 - 7:58pm |
What's the #1 issue for you?
You will be able to change your vote.
Edited 10/27/2008 4:37 pm ET by kittyrose333
- Healthcare
- Taxes
- The Economy
- Immigration
- Education
- Social Programs
- More religion in politics
- Other
- The war
You will be able to change your vote.
Edited 10/27/2008 4:37 pm ET by kittyrose333


Pages
If you want to get technical we could research this all the way back to Desert Storm.
"but hind sight is 20/20 and all we can do now is learn from the fateful day."
I totally agree with this!
<>
You do realize that we are nearly defenseless as it stands now, right? Our military is stretched to the breaking point and our economy is at an unbelievable low. There is no way we can continue on the course we are currently on. By continuing to waste our energy and resources in Iraq we leave ourselves wide open to terrorist threats. More missiles and more funding for weapons
Chrissy
mom to Aidan 8/21/03
Grayson Blaine 12/30/07
I agree that we are stretched to thin. The article I posted even states this:
(The following is from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122514387247773577.html?mod=rss_Global_View)
"Mr. Biden is right that America can't afford a thousand-ship Navy, not that anyone has proposed it. Current levels of funding don't quite suffice to operate 300 ships, or about half the number the U.S. had at the end of the Reagan arms buildup. The Navy would be satisfied with 313.
Current funding is also just adequate to purchase about 65 new planes for the Air Force each year, even as the average age of each plane creeps upward to nearly 24 years. Last year, the entire fleet of F-15Cs -- the Air Force's mainstay fighter -- was grounded after one of the planes came apart in midair. Spending on maintenance alone is up more than 80% from a decade ago. Is that another defense item Mr. Biden thinks America can't afford?
(As for nuclear weapons, the U.S. hasn't built a new warhead in decades. Its mainstay, the W76, is widely suspected of being unreliable, yet Congress has resisted funding the so-called Reliable Replacement Warhead.)
Maybe it seems odd that the Pentagon, whose budget for 2009 runs to well over $500 billion -- not including the supplemental $165 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan -- struggles to afford the equipment it needs.
But it's not odd. The U.S. has been fighting two wars, straining people and equipment. Weapons have generally become more complex and expensive. President Clinton's "procurement holiday" punted the modernization problems to the present. And even after the Bush buildup, defense spending amounts to just 4% of gross domestic product. By contrast, at the nadir of Cold War defense spending under Jimmy Carter, the figure was 4.7%.
All this should argue for at least a modest recapitalization effort by an Obama administration, assuming it really believes a strong military is "necessary to sustain peace." A study by the Heritage Foundation makes the case that defense spending should rise to close to $800 billion over the next four years in order to stick to the 4% GDP benchmark. That's unrealistic in light of the financial crisis. But holding the line at current levels is doable -- and necessary."
We certainly are spread too then. However, it is not necessary to make the nearly irreversible changes that Obama is proposing. Getting rid of our unproven missile defense program would be a huge mistake. This change would be irreversible and it would make our country defenseless. I am not proposing increasing funding; I am simply suggesting that funding not be cut, especially when Obama plans on increasing spending elsewhere. We already have started withdrawing troops from Iraq and sending them to Afghanistan, so for me this is not a huge issue in this election. Whoever is our next president will be part of the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. If Obama becomes president, he certainly will be credited with bringing the troops home. However, he will not deserve the credit for this. The process of transferring troops from Iraq to Afghanistan already has started. As for your comment about Obama having the better skill set to keep us safe, we simply need to agree to disagree about that.
~Amy
Edited 10/28/2008 4:35 pm ET by eclair1980
Pages