Okay, I really don't understand why nobody is questioning Obama on his defense cuts. One of the most common reasons I hear for supporting the cuts is that there's been too much wasteful spending in recent years, planes like the F-22's are and from the Cold War Era, and the U.S. needs to focus on the wars that it is currently engaged in like Iraq and Afghanistan. Here's what I have to say about all three of those points:
1) Why is Obama so worried about what we're "wasting" to protect ourselves when he doesn't seem to care that he's wasting taxpayer's money to expand the power of the federal government?
2) Obama's decision to terminate production of F-22's at 186 aircraft would, according to Air Force Chief of Staff Norman Schwartz, result in "moderate to high risk." Air Force leaders have argued, through a number of budget cycles over the years, that a fleet of 381 F-22's is the right mix of F-22's and F-35's that they need to protect the country. Even if the F-22's were completely useless, I would still say these budget cuts are a bad idea, considering that (among other things) the Obama administration wants to cut the number of ground-based interceptors that we need in order to target ballistic missiles.
3) As important as it is to win the wars we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, we need to be prepared for future combat. Besides, Obama has repeatedly indicated that he wants more international cooperation in combating terrorism. By scaling back on our defense, this will send a message of hypocrisy to our allies. And when at least two of our enemies (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il) are seen as mentally imbalanced by both foreign and domestic psychological experts, it most defenitely sends the wrong message to them as well.
Was it wasteful spending by the Bush administration that kept us safe from another terrorist attack in the post 9/11 era? Come on fellow Americans, I know you're smarter than that. No one should live in fear that we're gonna' get nuked by North Korea or Iran tommorow. But, if you care about the future of this country (regardless of where you sit on the political spectrum) as well as your personal safety, you should at least be concerned enough to speak out. For the sake of the free world, America can and should have the necessary tools to defend itself from its enemies. So, why is anyone believing the rhetoric of the liberal media that we can more effectively do so with fewer capabilities? Does someone out there have a good answer for this?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
glad you have a blog.
ReplyDeletewhat liberal views i have are driven not by a connection to gospel ambiguities but rather from my belief that mixing religion and politics has never been a successful experiment in a pluralistic society. i can be perfectly orthodox in my religious observance and still vote in a way that allows others complete moral freedom. for example, while i chose not to date before i was 16 based on the counsel of a prophet, i see no reason to impose that rule on america.
the most effective liberal critique of mormon conservatism is that mormon conservatives appear to be entirely arbitrary in what parts of the gospel they think should be legislated and what parts should not. mormon conservatives want to legislate sexual morality but choose not to legislate the commandments about sharing substance with others. they'd rather leave that commandment up to the individual conscience. why the distinction between commandments? i have yet to hear a well-reasoned answer to this question (but feel free to give it a try).