Replies

Under Bush's defense budget, the DoD is actually spending less on build-up than it did before Bush came on board. In fact, it appears the DoD is aside from the costs of pursuing terrorists, spending less on Defense than before Bush. PERIOD!

While your criticism of the Bush defense budget is well-founded, it is also misdirected. In point of fact, the DoD is spending $385 billion on defense in FY03 up from the $300 billion or so that Clinton spent on defense in FY00. That's nearly a 30% increase in defense spending over a three year period--in short the biggest defense increase since Reagan! Furthermore, DoD is trying to get rid of its environmental and non-DoD budget items which DoD has been forced to pay for since Clinton. Sadly, most of this budget increase is being wasted on superexpensive and unproven weaponry. Unfortunately, the Bushies are spending billions on all the wrong items--a $10 billion CVN(X) aircraft carrier, an unnecessary F-22 fighter, twice as many F-35 JSFs than we can afford, wheeled armored car IAV and FCS death traps while abolishing the very weapons we need like our tanks, tracked vehicles and Crusader SP artillery system, without which we can not win a major conventional war! They are also unilaterally dismantling 75% of our strategic nuclear arsenal without which we can not deter a nuclear attack from Russia, nor continue to support our claim to nuclear superpower status!

Thanks for the ping.

Saddam, etc are just a pimple on our arse and will be long dead without ever being a threat to the USA. China's communism is the real long term problem. However, we 'expect' trade to alter China's views.

But then again they do have 'weapons of mass destruction'. This has been the 'get out of war' card since traitors delivered our atomic secrets to Russia. So the 'view beyond' of those to be bombed will be limited to countries without a WMD capability. No wonder 'don't leave your nation without one' is on every nation's mind to avoid being stomped.