I know I'm going to go against the grain of the typical member here but you can't have discussion without disagreement.
Although I'm massively liberal socially and moderately liberal economically, I tend to side with the right on national security. I would hardly call myself a war mongeror because I would rather have peace than war. I'm indifferent to corporations profiting from war - as long as they don't influence government policy. If they do, that's a different issue which should be addressed separately. I definitely believe special interest should not have any special voice.
The problem with projecting weakness is a basic human nature thing. People want what is best for themselves. If you project weakness, anyone with interests against you will see that weakness and capitalize on it. It's like if you're the manager of a baseball team and you see that the opponent has a weak left-fielder, guess where you want your hitters to hit to?
Maintaining a strong defense is not a liberal or conservative issue; it's just good, common sense. Human nature - being what is - you WILL be attacked if you're perceived as weak.
I am hopeful that our society will evolve to the point where we have a universally agreed upon single world authority on military issues. That will require a degree of agreement that we don't have now. Some pessimistic people believe we will never have such an agreement or even that such an agreement will be undesirable. Either way, strength is desirable.
Eventually, the people of strength will have the greatest voice in dictating what many people euphemistically describe as the New World Order. Like it or not, it's coming. Everyone will eventually have nuclear weapons capability. I find it amazing that every country doesn't have it already. It's old technology. A one-world government will eventually be necessary to prevent Armageddon. Do you want to be a strong government during the negotiations or a weak one?
Although I'm massively liberal socially and moderately liberal economically, I tend to side with the right on national security. I would hardly call myself a war mongeror because I would rather have peace than war. I'm indifferent to corporations profiting from war - as long as they don't influence government policy. If they do, that's a different issue which should be addressed separately. I definitely believe special interest should not have any special voice.
The problem with projecting weakness is a basic human nature thing. People want what is best for themselves. If you project weakness, anyone with interests against you will see that weakness and capitalize on it. It's like if you're the manager of a baseball team and you see that the opponent has a weak left-fielder, guess where you want your hitters to hit to?
Maintaining a strong defense is not a liberal or conservative issue; it's just good, common sense. Human nature - being what is - you WILL be attacked if you're perceived as weak.
I am hopeful that our society will evolve to the point where we have a universally agreed upon single world authority on military issues. That will require a degree of agreement that we don't have now. Some pessimistic people believe we will never have such an agreement or even that such an agreement will be undesirable. Either way, strength is desirable.
Eventually, the people of strength will have the greatest voice in dictating what many people euphemistically describe as the New World Order. Like it or not, it's coming. Everyone will eventually have nuclear weapons capability. I find it amazing that every country doesn't have it already. It's old technology. A one-world government will eventually be necessary to prevent Armageddon. Do you want to be a strong government during the negotiations or a weak one?
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein
