America: Rich or poor?

The Washington Times ^ | January 26, 2005 | William R. Hawkings

[Convert from ECUSA]

President Bush set forth a global vision of a world without tyranny in his Inaugural address. Earlier, in her Senate confirmation hearing, Secretary of State-designate Condoleezza Rice had listed six countries which were "outposts of tyranny." Four of the outposts (Cuba, Burma, North Korea, Iran) have strong ties to China. Yet, it has been widely reported the Pentagon will eliminate, cut back or delay a number of major weapons programs under orders from the Office of Management of Budget to bring down the federal deficit. So the question is: Can the Bush administration muster resources needed to support its ambitious and progressive foreign policy? The Navy and Air Force will take the biggest hits, centered on the high-end capabilities that give the U.S. its global advantage. The Navy will lose an aircraft carrier, dropping from 12 to 11 in the fleet. The LPD-17 amphibious assault ship planned for 2008 is to be canceled. Two of the new DD(X) destroyers will be dropped as production is pushed back. Nuclear submarine construction will be cut to one per year. Instead of submarines, the Navy is instructed to find some other way to assure "undersea superiority" — preferably something that is free. The Navy has fallen to 290 ships, from 357 ships in 1994. Testimony before Congress by top admirals has identified a need for at least 350 ships (with 15 carriers) to cover U.S. global requirements. Current shipbuilding rates are the lowest since the isolationist days of the Depression era.

[Convert from ECUSA]

Ain't this a blip?!?! We're going to stand up to terrorism, outposts of tyranny, the axis of evil, and we keep emasculating our military! Hello leaders, I know you're out there, I can hear you wheezing. Either have the military capability to back up the policy, or change the policy. You can't expect to growl like a lion when you have the armament of a house cat! (Viking Kitties excepted, of course) Must be a new policy of speak loudly and carry a twig!

[glockmeister40]

Chine is the one we're going to have to fight within the next ten years. These muslims are just a sideshow. The war with china will be a conventional war, with naval battles across the pacific. Subs will be the most critical part.

[odoso]

"it has been widely reported the Pentagon will eliminate, cut back or delay a number of major weapons programs"

Won't be long now till we're speaking Chinese or Arabic.
Apparently, they already are in the Office of Management of Budget.

Stupid F'n mindless idiots!!! Has history taught you nothing!!!

[Convert from ECUSA]

Yep, I think you're right. If we keep cutting back our armed forces, we'll end up having to roll out the red carpet for everything west of Alaska and Hawaii and telling Red China "be our guest", and that stinks!

[Convert from ECUSA]

They sure haven't learned from history, have they?! Maybe the Muslims or Chinese will do something to tick the other off and they'll end up fighting each other. But I'm not holding my breath on that one, either. If these not-learned-anything-from-history decisions are being made with the Repubs are in power, Heaven help us if the Dems win in 2008!

[Alberta's Child]

I saw a great documentary once on King Edward I back in the 11th or 12th century. England was a remarkable military power during his reign, and were able to dominate the British island from a military standpoint. What eventually brought it all to an end was the enormous cost of maintaining a strong, but non-productive (from an economic standpoint) military presence in Wales, Scotland, etc.

Now extend that concept to the entire globe, and this might be precisely the problem the U.S. now finds itself facing.

[EagleMamaMT]

Read later.