vision2020
Re: ain't gonna pay for war no more
Saundra:
We have an undefended border with Canada and an undefended border with Mexico. We have a Pacific, an Atlantic and a Gulf Coast that stretch for thousands of miles. We are one of the world's largest importing and exporting nations; thousands of containers enter our ports every day of the year, of which only about 2% receive a cursory inspection by customs. Millions of people enter the United States each year as visitors, immigrants and students. If we doubled or tripled our spending on defense, customs, immigrations and border patrol we still would not have the forces and equipment to assure that events like September 11th won't happen again.
The only possible way to do that is to do what the Bush Administration is currently trying to do, and that is to track Al Quaida and all of the other America-hating terrorist groups in the world to their lairs and kill them. We will never be able to find and kill all of them, of course, but if we make a creditable and reasonably successful long-term effort to do so, then the deterence factor may prevent like-minded people around the world from repeating such attacks as September 11th in America. If they realize that they will have no place to hide, and no respite from the hunt for them in their lifetimes, and that their organizations and nations of origin will be targeted, they will not dare to attack us. Our global-reach military forces and intelligence services, and the forces and intelligence services of our allies, are the only means available to prevent such attacks in the future. It simply can't be done here at home.
That is why we need a strong military. Not that the military doesn't need civilian supervision... there are programs that can be cut, and weapons systems we do not need. They shouldn't get a blank check. But if they can make the case that a weapons system, or a transportation asset, or anything else, will improve their chances of doing the jobs they are assigned to do, then we should make every effort to provide it to them.
Additionally, it is verging on criminal that military pay is so low that enlisted personnel with families can qualify for food stamps and reduced cost school lunches, and that the majority of our military families are living in substandard military housing.
What I posted to Ms. Sullivan may have seemed a bit harsh to you, but I consider those who were born and live in this country, with all of its benefits of freedom and luxury, and yet refuse to either defend it themselves or respect those who have volunteered to do so to be immoral parasites with a Pollyanna world view.
Regards,
Don Kaag
On Monday, September 2, 2002, at 11:49 AM, Saundra Lund wrote:
Don Kaag (in responding to Sharon Sullivan's information about the WHOPPING 46% of our tax dollars currently going to military and defense spending) wrote:
"...and this is bad why?
Don't you have a television set? Or a radio, or a newspaper subscription? We are approaching the anniversary of the worst attack on the United States in our history---much worse, in terms of casualties than Pearl Harbor in 1941. Thousands of innocent civilians going about their daily routine in the largest, most important city in our nation were burned to death, blown to pieces and horribly injured by suiciding Islamic terrorists in hijacked airliners."
Yes, I've got TVs and radios and several newspaper subscriptions. I doubt there's a person in the US over the age of five who doesn't realize what anniversary is upcoming.
My response to your question, ". . . and this is bad why?" is to ask *you* why *you* think it's good? It obviously didn't prevent September 11th, regardless of the substantial taxation level. It sure didn't protect the Pentagon, and only the brave actions of *individual* civilians, not the military, protected the White House that day (assuming that was the target of Flight 93).
And, exorbitant taxation for defense sure didn't do anything to protect the thousands innocent civilians who were killed and injured on that terrible day.
I'm not entering into a debate about the good/bad of funding the military at its current level, at a greater level, or at a lesser level. While there are a great many instances in which I *don't* agree with defense spending, I personally appreciate the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform, and the sacrifices of their families, including you and your family, Mr. Kaag. I don't happen to believe that we do a good job of appreciating those who lay their lives on the line to defend our freedoms and ways of life.
However, I don't buy your apparent argument that throwing money into defense & military spending provides us greater protection. I think September 11th, *your* example, makes my point :-)
Mr. Kaag then resorts to insults, including:
"But don't think for a minute, whether you like it or not, that there are not "rough men" out there somewhere making it possible for you to exercise your violence-secured First Amendment right to post pacifist nonsense on Vision 2020."
I don't think insulting those who disagree with our views if very helpful . . . or nice. I think you could have made the same point in an honorable manner, and *not* turned off those who perhaps agree with your ideas, or at least some of them, but not with your insults.
Have you ever heard of the saying, "You'll attract more flies with honey than with vinegar"?
Of course, differing values are one reason "opt out" theories of taxation won't work. If Mr. Wilson can opt out of taxes for public education, then Ms. Sullivan should be able to opt out of taxes for military, and Mr. Huffman should be able to opt out of taxes for health care and all forms of welfare (including corporate welfare and farms), and . . . I should be able to opt out of all taxes that are increased as a result of others' tax exempt status ;-)
There goes our high standard of living . . . and our quality of life . . . and any notion of justice and equality I'm interested in for my community.
Respectfully,
SaundraLund
Moscow, Idaho
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Back to TOC