The Grand New Party

Only in an offensive posture. If we are in a defensive posture, then our troops are not exposed, and they are less open to IED's or other cheap tactics. By your logic, we should be spending far more on Police then we are, for the same reason. but we don't.
I understand you can't just go cold turkey, but you can spend rationally, and not by Ferraris when the next closest competitor has an Acura.
If I'm putting my life on the line I want the Ferraris and hope the guy I'm fighting has the Acura.

Not sure if you guys saw that we arrested 4 terrorist today that wanted to bomb some building and shoot down planes. Man Bush really did a good job seting up home land security.FBI Credits Informant for Helping Bust New York Terror Plot - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520961,00.html)

If I'm putting my life on the line I want the Ferraris and hope the guy I'm fighting has the Acura.

ok, but most of the guys we are fighting are driving Yugo's.

Our founding fathers, who many admire, warned of Foreign entanglements. Yes our obligations matter, but they should not override our sensibilities. Agree, but to keep Russia, China, Iran in check is definitely in our national interest. The world is far too interconnected and the "ponds" that sheltered us in the 20th century, don't provide the protection they used to. We start backing away from our allies and that will embolden those who wish us ill will.

Maintaining a strong defense does not have to be a sign of weakness, and you can have a huge military like we do, but if your political leadership is weak, you will not be respected anyways.Roger that! I was in the military under Reagan and Bush 1, vastly different since Clinton. Agree we can scale back sheer manpower (which is a tremendous cost), but we must keep the technological advantages we've enjoyed for the last 60+ years. Although there should be stronger oversight of these programs.

ok, but most of the guys we are fighting are driving Yugo's.
The enemies we're fighting today are driving Yugos. But, the Russians & Chinese are always working on Ferrari's, they have some pretty good Acuras, and the Chinese have a whole lot more manpower than we do.

Agree, but to keep Russia, China, Iran in check is definitely in our national interest. The world is far too interconnected and the "ponds" that sheltered us in the 20th century, don't provide the protection they used to. We start backing away from our allies and that will embolden those who wish us ill will.

Roger that! I was in the military under Reagan and Bush 1, vastly different since Clinton. Agree we can scale back sheer manpower (which is a tremendous cost), but we must keep the technological advantages we've enjoyed for the last 60+ years. Although there should be stronger oversight of these programs.

I was in under Bush1/Clinton, and the difference was amazing. I think we can do both, reduce manpower properly, and reduce expenditures in technology, while not just ignoring the other aggressors in the world. BUT our defense spending currently is more than all the other nations combined, so we either are a) really stupid and thus need to spend that much more, or b) just grossly over spending. I generally say b.

The enemies we're fighting today are driving Yugos. But, the Russians & Chinese are always working on Ferrari's, they have some pretty good Acuras, and the Chinese have a whole lot more manpower than we do.

yeah, but a couple neutron bombs thrown in the mix would even that out. and seriously, unless we engage them in their land, an aggressive posture, they aren't sending waves of chinamen against our borders.

Man power is irrelevant when dealing with a nuclear capable nation. You only invade countries that don't have THE Bomb (see Iraq vs North Korea).

ok, but most of the guys we are fighting are driving Yugo's.
Thats even better.

Do a little research on SDI...we've been at it nearly 3 decades and conservative estimates have the cost around $1 trillion, though the real expenditure is said to be much higher. What do we have to show for it today? Almost nothing. It doesn't work. I've heard top military brass on documentaries say it's no more realistic today than it was 20 years ago. Basically, if you had to pinpoint the single most wasteful program of all time nothing, absolutely nothing, can hold a candle to SDI. Again we can bitch and moan and wring our hands over SS, which has on overhead of a few tenths of a percent, or even medicare. But in both cases we're at least getting something from the program. There is total consensus that SDI is non-operational and nobody has been able to say "this is what we need to make it work" or something to that effect. Hell just a few years ago, before the economic indicators fell through the floor, i remember reading an article where Bush discussed outlays of another trillion to finally make the damn thing work (to be fair i believe his proposal included another system in Europe as well) but that doesn't take away from the reality...we've likely spent trillions on something that is no more cogent than a 9mm.I would suggest actually doing some very basic research on the program. Your numbers are grossly overexaggerated and the $$$ from this program has funded much research and development. In addition to the technology advances, the SDI initiative was key into bringing down the Berlin wall.

Strategic Defense Initiative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative)

Social Security and Medicare are vastly more costly entitlement programs, not research and development programs. What tangible items do we have from Social Security and Medicare?