[DoughtyOne]

Nah.

We bring troops home and both parties will support reducing our armed forces.

Does that make us stronger?

Along with that comes reductions in equipment, and readiness.

I don’t relish the idea of none of our active forces having served in combat before.

We need experienced men.

[Mariner]

“I don’t relish the idea of none of our active forces having served in combat before.”

that’s an argument for endless war.

That said, your argument about reduced funding is certainly valid.

[Zhang Fei]

[Nah.

We bring troops home and both parties will support reducing our armed forces.

Does that make us stronger?

Along with that comes reductions in equipment, and readiness.

I don’t relish the idea of none of our active forces having served in combat before.

We need experienced men.]

---

Precisely. Pearl Harbor occurred because we were spending peanuts on defense, and the consequence was outdated equipment, a skeleton military and abysmal readiness levels. In the nuclear age, we need significant spending on defense, because the kind of advance to Baghdad we achieved in days - is open to any adversary with superior gear. And they won’t have our compunctions about quashing insurgencies the traditional way - with mass killings.