http://economist.com/world/na/displa...ory_id=2266006


Is the implementation of the MDS purely political, or is President Bush's motivation honestly for the sake of National Defense?

Should we be spending so much money on a potentionally fallible system instead of R&D?

And what of the very nature of the program? Does America have the right to defend itself against ICBMs? Is there still a purpose to it?

 

Uhhhh....

Last I looked, The United States has the right and the obligation to defend itself against any enemies, foreign or domestic, regardless of the means those enemies use...be it commercial aircraft as missles or ICBMs.

And yes, there is a purpose...the world is more unbalanced and dangerous than it has ever been.

What planet do you live on?

 

Well it depends on how you look at it. It could be considered political if you consider that, generally speaking, Republicans are pro-military and pro-protection of America and its freedoms.

Whereas, again generally speaking, Democrats loath the military and believe America should bow down to those who wish to harm us. Their, the democrats, general consensus is we should “play nice” and try to “understand” those who wish to see our way of life destroyed.

Looking at it from that point of view one could surmise that the MDS is political in nature. Those that find themselves in that camp would also have you believe there is no need to have a police force, jail/prison system and thus absolutely no need for a justice system. That of course would be so, if they are consistent in their logical beliefs.

Therefore you have to decide for yourself if it’s political in nature or a matter of defending ones way of life, family and country and thus is it worth protecting, and is it worth protecting future generations. So the question is, what camp do you belong to?

If you look at that question it is mute upon its merits because in reality everything is “potentially fallible” from police, to automobiles, to fire alarms, to the guns one may use to actually defend themselves.

The question is “How much is your way of life worth to you? How much is it worth protecting your family and your belongings? How much is it worth protecting your country? And, How much is it worth to protect future generations?

It is also a question of priorities. If you’re familiar with the United States Constitution the governments “main” purpose is to protect the country. That means a national defense is and should always be priority number one.

No where in the United States Constitution does it make mention that social programs are priority, that means if you had to make hard choices then the military and the protection of this country come before every other appropriations in the federal budget.

There is no mention in the United States Constitution that mentions older people are “entitled” to a guaranteed paycheck every month, nor that some people are “entitled” to free prescription drugs, nor is some people who decide not to work “entitled” to free food, medical coverage and dental (welfare).

The point being is that the defense of this nation is indeed mentioned in the United States Constitution. If our elected officials decide there is not enough money to fund the defense of this country then they have some hard decisions to make, namely which “free entitlement” programs need to be cut to properly fund the defense of this country.

Another point which backs up this fact is that if the country is not protected and our way of life was to come under attack then none of those that may be receiving “entitlements” today will receive them tomorrow.

This is a fact that eludes many of those who believe America does not need to be defended or not defended properly. Some of those very same people also have not thought about the fact if something were to happen their freedom to speak as they do now would most likely end.

Though the above comment does not deserve a response I will say this. America has every right to protect itself by deterring any enemy from attacking America. If the enemy can not be deterred then America has the right to KILL every single one of them…

 

Just in case you are questioning my statement that the United States Constitution makes mention of the defense of America I refer you to the following:

Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States, but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

[snip]

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years.

To provide a Navy,

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces,

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions,

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. [snip]


President’s oath of office:

Article II, Section 1:

[snip]
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
[snip]

Article II Section 2:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States [snip]

So to the question of:

“Is the implementation of the MDS purely political, or is President Bush's motivation honestly for the sake of National Defense?”

I would say no it is NOT political but rather his Constitutional Responsibility…

 

Burt, that's page 987 in my American Gov book.

 

Well put 01. I really hope that Einhander is not 'really' questioning a nations right to defend itself. I know one thing is for sure, I will be defending myself against intruders coming into my house. Should America be any different?

 

I wish I could share your simplistic world view. One could only think a specific statement such as 'MDS is political in nature' leading to a conclusion that one must reject a general notion such as justice system or law and order fails to recognise that these two entities are not in fact identical. Could it not possibly incorporate both elements of a political nature AND self defence? the missile defence shield is questionable in it's effectiveness, thus suggesting it's persuit is only a token gesture towards the idea of national self defence. Thus, an approach which is not totally committed or whole hearted suggests that other factors must come into play, aside from the notion of national defence.

I'm not speaking in terms of absolute values, and you cannot seriously dodge a question that way. Obviously, the question presented was intended to be framed with the idea that the MDS system is a more fallible to a certain degree, and thus more of a risk compared with R&D. In otherwords, it is not the notion of 'national defence' that is in dispute, rather, a question of whether the MDS is actually best placed to serve that specific interest. If not, then it seems to be a gesture without substance, and it is indeed valid to ask why shouldn't funds be directed towards other endeavours, such as R&D, that may achieve the goal of defence.

 

MDS and the justice system, police and law and order are of the same entities in that they are all based on self protection, and a means to control behavior which ultimately controls how a society, nation and the world behave with one another.

MDS is a debatable entity as far as the arsenal of self defense is concerned.


I can understand what you’re trying to say in that perhaps with more R&D a “possible” better system of protection can be designed. However one has to ask “how long do you continue to do R&D?”

You could theoretically do R&D for the next 50 years and still not be satisfied you have the absolutely best system possible and thus during that time leave yourself vulnerable to possible threats.

You could look at it like a city debating on if they should have a police force and while debating there are no police force for protecting the community. It is guaranteed that a city with no police force will suffer crime.

Another very important thing to note is the MDS is one of the major reasons for ending the cold war. It was simply too much for the Soviets to contemplate and it indeed scared them and thus may very well have protected America from any future nuclear threat posed by the Soviets in the 80’s. Therefore the MDS has, at least in my opinion, deterred a past enemy and it wasn’t yet in place to actually work…

The question to you is do you believe that national defense is priority number one when it comes to the federal budget? Do you believe it comes before any and all social programs? If the answer is yes then the MDS is a debatable issue. If the answer is no then there is no point debating the matter…

 

Seems odd to me that 10 posts into your membership on a "Truck Board" you're talking ICBM's What's bothering you? There are a lot of other boards out there where you can talk politics with a little democrat smack to it.

 

I think comrade Einhander might have something there. We don't really need a strong defense when we could give the money to our enemies so they would leave us alone. I know that after I get my pay check cashed I put the money in an envelope on the front porch and the bad guys leave me alone. I hope they never want more than I can afford to give them because I haven't been able to afford to buy anything to protect myself, and I think they have been buying weapons to attack other people who can't afford to give them what they want. I guess that I'll have to make more money if they want more, them I can't take care of my family properly, medical, food, clothes, shelter. Maybe instead of giving the money to the bad guys, I could pay someone to protect me and my family.

 

I say we all just go out and have some Barbque and a couple of beers... LOL!

 

The President's primary motivation is to be re-elected. I'd argue the secondary motivation is to leave a legacy for his name. Defence of the country is his duty and the means to those ends.

That said, I think (and hope) it's a waste of money. We're on amicable terms with the powers that are developing intercontinental-capable missile systems, but we're on terrible terms with the guys that like to strap bombs to teenagers. We need to spend the big dollars on human intelligence on the ground, as well as buying our way out of the petroleum addiction.

 

Of course if we didn't have one and something did happen everyone would want to know why we never set some kind of defense up. Then rumors would fly that the president knew of the attacks but he didn't develop or make the program so he could (insert any common critizism of a president here)

31C

 

Well I have my opinions about this...

Fact , it is extremely political, yes it costs lottsa moola.

There are many that think it's a waste of money because they have not personally been hit with a missile. That's is short-sighted thinking as believing anti-lock brakes and air bags are a waste of money because only stupid people get into auto accidents . Therefore , it is waste of money because it will never be unless absolutely needed.

Fact, D.O.D. work stays in the USA.

The money spent on these type of projects will be used employ many Americans. Perhaps the opponents would rather see the money spent on welfare and many other social issues to enable a mass of people to depend others , rather than themselves. I really don't see the problem with enabling Americans to be gainfully employed producing protection systems for all of us. This is a good thing in todays economy because of lost jobs due to outsourcing consumer products to foreign countries.

Remember , your job may be the next to go overseas.

 

Methinks Einie is out to stir the pot again.

For those of you suffering from short-term memory loss follow the attached.

Exhibit A