So lets see: What he actually says (without any editorial comment from me) 1. Opposes the War in Iraq(tm) 2. Wants to cut 10s of Billions in wasteful spending from defense budget. 3. Cut investment in unproven missile defense technology. 4. "Not weaponize space" 5. Create an Independent Defense Priorities Board to ensure that the Quadrennial defense review is not used to justify "unnecessary defense spending" 6. Set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. 7. No development of "new" nuclear weapons 8. seeks a global ban on the production of fissile materials (Weapons grade plutonium, etc.?) 9. Negotiate with Russia to take ICBMs of "hair-trigger alert" 10. And achieve great cuts in nuclear arsenal.
So out of that you got "he wants to dismantle the military"? That's a huge stretch Sam, even for you. So lets look at each in turn. 1. He opposes the War in Iraq. He always has. He supports the war in Afghanistan and has gone on record as such. He wants to keep military options on the table, but exhaust all avenues of diplomacy before using them. 2. . 10s of billions weighed against the current budget of...$560 Billion--I think there might be some wiggle room. Ref -- http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2008/fy2008_greenbook.pdf 3. "Unproven missile technology" - is just that, missiles we can't make work, time and time again. Other weapons systems are cut all the time given they don't work. 4. "Not weaponizing space" is a pretty good goal I think, in ~50 years of space "travel" we've managed to not create an orbiting missile platform, I happen to think that is a good thing. Maybe you disagree. If that is so, well, nothing I say will convince you otherwise. 5. Create an Independent Defense Priorities Board ... -- Pretty sound logic there. Weigh the priorities against the recommendations, rather than assume a Cold War scenario, which is what we've been doing for the last 50 years. 6. "a world without nuclear weapons" -- might be unrealistic in our lifetime, but lofty goal != bad goal. And what would be wrong with a world without nukes? What is your opposition to no nukes? 7. No development of *new* nuclear weapons -- reminds me of a story my father told once. (He worked for the DOD in Force Modernization) The Army wanted a new piece of artillery that would increase kill effectiveness from 96% to 97%. The Mod Managers turned down the proposal as it was not a significant enough increase to warrant the increase in spending. Our current batch of nukes I think kill pretty well (at least on the drawing board). What is the benefit of "new" when weighed against the cost of development? Notice also that he does *not* say stop production of current systems. 8. Global ban on the production of fissile materials -- does not preclude production of nuclear fuels for power. Power Grade != Weapons Grade. 9. Negotiate with Russia to take ICBMs of "hair-trigger alert" - I thought this had already been done, but if not. maybe it should be. 10. And "achieve great cuts in ... nuclear arsenal". Which is already in progress. So where again do you get "the impression he wants to dismantle the military"? Where does that come from? > I get the impression he wants to dismantle the military. Instant world peace > and all that. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs&feature=related -- will "If my life weren't funny, it would just be true; and that would just be unacceptable." - Carrie Fisher ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;192386516;25150098;k Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:261290 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
