Strong military , or more money

[Snapperhead]

I see some argue that Reagan spent too much on a military . Strong military costs money . Period .

A Weak military will cost less , sure , you will have more money in your pocket from reduced spending and lower taxes - yet you have to wonder whos plotting to take down another building on the weak USA .

Which would you rather have ?

Or lets use another analogy . The local fire and rescue . Do you like them putting out fires and saving the children trapped on the 3rd floor ? Oh and rushing as fast they can to help you as you are pinned in the seat and about to bleed to death in a wreck ? Or would you rather cut costs there too and maybe give them a Toyota Prius and cut back on employees ....

[scrogdog]

I would say that it depends on threat assessment. It's a balance. The threat's that you face versus the capability that you have to stop them.

By that measure, I can't blame Clinton for the drawdown except for the fact that I believe that he went much too far. My balance was not his balance. :)

This is a debate we'll have until the end of time. I don't think there is one answer for all time. It's situational.

Same with the fire dept. You want the capability to face any threat while at the same time not becoming bloated.

[tunnel_rat]

One of the real functions of the Federal Gov't is National Defense. I'd rather see them spend some big cash (my cash) on that instead of a bunch of BS that they seem to be so addicted to. Fix the roads, protect the country, and seal the boarders, and if you really have time and money left after that, then we'll talk....:mad:

[glennac]

By winning the cold war Regan has saved us far more than he spent to win it. Becasue we are no longer having to fight the cold war. We still have other millitary expenses but we no longer have to spend in Europe and NATO like we did before or have a missile command set to go like before.

[air311]

I would say that it depends on threat assessment. It's a balance. The threat's that you face versus the capability that you have to stop them.

By that measure, I can't blame Clinton for the drawdown except for the fact that I believe that he went much too far. My balance was not his balance. :)

This is a debate we'll have until the end of time. I don't think there is one answer for all time. It's situational.

Same with the fire dept. You want the capability to face any threat while at the same time not becoming bloated.

This we agree on 100%. I see why Clinton cut military spending..the problem is his administration, and the one before it, didn't recognize the growing threat from Al-Qaeda until it was to late to stop it.