09-06-2004, 12:32 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Sir Die alotI @Sep 4 2004+ 05:10 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sir Die alotI @Sep 4 2004 @ 05:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I am calm.
Keep in mind what is going on with the military, thousands and thousands are over seas in combat, 130,000 in Iraq alone last I heard. Reguardless how you feel about the decision, once deployed, we should support our troops. That doesn't mean we just don't spit on them and call them "baby killers", that also means supporting them finantially.[/quote]
What you had said before was something like "the U.S. military spends less %GDP on the militray than a lot of other countries, it's just more powerful because it has more money". By itself, that argument says that the U.S. should spend more on the military just to have a big military at all costs. It ignores whether that military is actually used for something. I suggested you calm down because you seemed to by scared in the back of your mind of something serious happening for no reason other than having a smaller military. I also say that if more money goes into the military than it really needs, that money should be spent elsewhere.
I don't really know what's going on with Iraq right now, so I'm not going to argue about that, but the aergument that the military needs more money because soldiers need more supplies is a much better one than that the U.S. should spend more money because it's %GDP is lower.
If anyone tries for a word definition argument about "needs", I'm using "needs" in the sense of "whatever it needs to do the job well". I hate word definition arguments because they don't add anything to the issue, so I'll write this to keep one from starting. This isn't directed at anyone in particular.
Keep in mind what is going on with the military, thousands and thousands are over seas in combat, 130,000 in Iraq alone last I heard. Reguardless how you feel about the decision, once deployed, we should support our troops. That doesn't mean we just don't spit on them and call them "baby killers", that also means supporting them finantially.[/quote]
What you had said before was something like "the U.S. military spends less %GDP on the militray than a lot of other countries, it's just more powerful because it has more money". By itself, that argument says that the U.S. should spend more on the military just to have a big military at all costs. It ignores whether that military is actually used for something. I suggested you calm down because you seemed to by scared in the back of your mind of something serious happening for no reason other than having a smaller military. I also say that if more money goes into the military than it really needs, that money should be spent elsewhere.
I don't really know what's going on with Iraq right now, so I'm not going to argue about that, but the aergument that the military needs more money because soldiers need more supplies is a much better one than that the U.S. should spend more money because it's %GDP is lower.
If anyone tries for a word definition argument about "needs", I'm using "needs" in the sense of "whatever it needs to do the job well". I hate word definition arguments because they don't add anything to the issue, so I'll write this to keep one from starting. This isn't directed at anyone in particular.
I may be dead, but I'm not old (source: see lavcat)
The gloves come off, I'm playing hardball. It's fourth and 15 and you're looking at a full-court press. (Frank Drebin in The Naked Gun)
Some people in forums do the next best thing to listening to themselves talk, writing and reading what they write (source, my brother)
The gloves come off, I'm playing hardball. It's fourth and 15 and you're looking at a full-court press. (Frank Drebin in The Naked Gun)
Some people in forums do the next best thing to listening to themselves talk, writing and reading what they write (source, my brother)