The most noise being made in this thread is about who spends how much for what. What some posters here can't seem to comprehend is: what's needed in this war isn't more, but different. They're hung up on numbers, not application. They can't wrap their brains around the concept that less money, spent differently, might be more effective. You seemed to be headed for the same place yourself, which surprised me - and I stand corrected now, and apologize.
Meanwhile, the news I've been hearing (NPR and BBC) from the NATO meeting in Prague all this week has been [a] Bush & Co. urging the same point: our allies don't spend enough on defense; [b] Iraq, Iraq, Iraq...; [c] oh yes, by the way, seven more countries have been invited to join. This from a guy who Condee Rice insisted doesn't start his day with Iraq...
I did hear, during the news reportage, that the EU/NATO are finally waking up to the idea of a multinational RDF for police actions - which they should have had decades ago, but the Soviet juggernaut distracted them - and that, imho, is where they should spend thier defense money: not more, but different.
Sometimes this board is more a microcosm of US politics (foreign and domestic) than it may collectively realize - and sometimes that's a little scary.
Current Events » in reply to Re: Where are you going with this . . . ?
Priorities vs. Rhetoric, Dan
The whole thread (80 posts)
- Canadians lose their minds.
- Why does Canada even have an army?
- Inoperative chestnut
- Re: Why buy aircraft?
- Canadian scizophrenia
- Reposting part of the article you posted so maybe everyone will read it this time
- Something to consider
- That's fine
- Cdn military
- Just saying no
- Re: As a Canadian what you say kinda pisses me off
- Then don't come begging to us for airlift capacity
- Re: Americans spend more on military than any country in the world
- Not even to fight Bushs' war?
- Then don't come begging to us for airlift capacity
