national defense
national defense questions and answers
Q: What are the reasons for national defense?
I know national security is always of vital importance for countries. Today, government invest huge money in national defense.
What are the reasons for doing that?
A: international offense...
Q: Is Obama shooting back at the appeasement comment only to appear strong on national defense/foreign affairs?
One of Obama's weak points is that he is not considered strong on national defense/foreign affairs. Are his repeated comments on Bush's "appeasement" statement a way for him to come out swinging against Bush and McCain so as to appear strong on national defense/foreign affairs?
A: Bush was talking about X President Carter and the far Left in general not Obama. Remember Carter and his bunch were just over there talking appeasement to Hamas.
Obama and the left press is shooting back because it hit a nerve. They reacted thru their own guilty feelings.
Glad you asked
Q: What will happen when our National Defense is given over to Obama?
I almost freeze up when at the mere possibility that it might happened. His radical group of new party and stuttering savants will have access to our National Defense.
A: The weak point of the Bush administration has to be diplomacy. Our diplomacy should be much better with Obama. Maybe we won't be engaged in needless occupations which sap the strength from our armed forces. Maybe we can focus on terrorism and go after the people who attacked us.
Former Marine ... Vietnam Vet
Q: Just how do you get both lower taxes and a strong national defense?
In her speech, Sarah Palin called for the conservative platform of lower taxes and a strong national defense.
I was wondering, how do you get both those things at the same time?
When GWB was President, we spent so much on foreign wars that we put our grandchildren into debt.
Then if taxes were to be lowered, that National Debt would never be chipped away at in our lifetimes, so that debt could sink America with lowered dollar evaluations.
Can anyone explain to me how we could have both of these things, high military spending but lower taxes at home?
A: you really can't, best to stop killing all these people and save a little money.
Q: Is the 2nd Amendment limited to the context of national defense?
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Some claim that the right to bear arms is limited to national defense, solely because of the reference to 'militia' and the idea that militia means national guard.
It means almost the opposite. National Guardsmen are called up by the states and the federal government to protect the states and nation and the federal governent owns and keeps the weapons they use. The militia were an ad hoc citizens band formed to protect themselves and their families from threats without and within - including tyranny from the central government, a fight for which the government won't likely arm you! They fought Indians, outlaws, and the British - i.e., the national government. And "regulated" meant equipped - i.e., armed.
They carried their own weapons, and the Revolution began when the national government tried to take the militia's guns.
A: militia is the common people not the military ... standing armies were seen as one of the greatest threats to liberty by our founding fathers ...
Mr. Patrick Henry: “The militia, sir, is our ultimate safety. We can have no security without it... The great object is, that every man be armed".
Mr. James Madison: “Mr. Chairman, I most cordially agree, with the honorable member last up, that a standing army is one of the greatest mischiefs that can possibly happen. I
Mr. George Mason: “But when once a standing army is established in any country, the people lose their liberty.
"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens" - Alexander Hamilton
Q: Who would actually join Obama's civilian national defense force?
All the recent questions on Obama's civilian national defense force have got me thinking, who would take part in it? Would hippie liberals flock to it in droves to sign up to join a civilian military to support their messiah? Would the type of person attracted to the military ever cross over and do that? In terms of manpower, how is this a feasible force?
A: I suppose they probably would, and just for the reason you stated.
Their unit patch will be a rainbow,their rank insignia will be a certain type of tree, they will be armed with 9mm cellphones, and their squad vehicle will be a BMW or Volvo.They must be fluent in texting, and can only eat vegetarian MRE's.
Their ID cards will have a photo of either Obama himself, or Al Gore.
They will not have dog tags, however, because of the weight, and the allergic reactions to them. Enlisted members are allowed one cat, but officers may have as many as they want.
I see these morons as just a bunch of whiny tattletales, just waiting for the opportunity to be "deployed".
I can't wait for a platoon of them to visit my neighborhood.
Q: Should the free market be applied to our national defense?
Let's abandon for a moment that the constitution provides the federal government with the powers to mandate a standing army. If the free market works so well, why don't we apply it to our national defense? According to conservatives it would make it better, and why should we settle for sub par national defense?
Military Industrial Complex. We spend tons of money during peace time on defense to keep our defense industry alive.
If you disagree with me you are a socialist. bwahahaha.
A: It already is. The government doesn't manufacture its own weapons, planes, body armor, hummers, ammunition, ships....
Q: What precautions do the US military take to ensure that networks involving national defense remain secure?
What are the precautions that the U.S. military and intelligence (FBI, CIA) are taking to ensure that networks involving national defense remain secure from terrorist attacks?
A: The best precaution, they are isolated with no outside connection.
AAS Computer Networking
Q: Taxes, health care and national defense...how to sort out which gets paid for first? How do libs decide?
In my opinion, health care is unnecessary if you are dead, so national defense should come first. I keep reading from liberals that since we fund a war, we should instead fund health care for all Americans. How do libs set their spending priorities?
A: The liberals have already decided. It's health care and to pay for it, it's taxes. They could care less whether we are dead or not as long as they get what they want and it's not really what they want but rather what their rich leaders want and have brainwashed them into believing.
Q: What does Obama mean when he said I want a Civilian National Defense Force Equal to the power of the Military?
Is he for real?Does he mean that he will use street Thugs to enforce Civilian Laws?The link is on U tube please leave it if you have it?
A: i am aware of this and have seen the video where he said it would get equal funding that the military gets...this is scary stuff.
Q: Which is characteristic of a public good such as national defense?
-It is divisible.
-It is easy to charge people on the basis of how much they use.
-It can be used by increasing numbers of people at no additional cost.
-It is subject to the exclusion principle.
A: correct answer is c--it can be used by increasing numbers of people at no additional cost.
national defence is a pure public good
pure public good is indivisible, no excludibility is there. and non rivalry in nature means those who donot pay for it or who donot pay taxes they also take benefit from it like national defence. if i dont pay tax, even then i will be protected by national defence.
Q: Going solely on terrorism and national defense who is the best candidate?
Ron Paul??? You mean old surrender first and ask questions later Paul? Come on serious replies only please.
A: I think it is a tossup between Mc Cain and Guiliani. They are both tough negotiators and if you believe in diplomacy first as I do we need a tough negotiator not someone who will give away the farm like Clinton did in N Korea. He sent them 2 nuclear reactors,fuel and 3/4 of a billion in cash which they used to build a nuclear bomb.
On the democratic side on this issue only the only candidate that would not be a nightmare is probably Joe Biden.
Q: Why do the dems allow the republicans to portray themselves as the strongest on national defense?
When realistically the worst terrorist attack happened on their watch?
They failed to investigate the attack in a timely manner...and seemed to do as much as possible to undermine it! By giving it the least amount of money and limited time!
Spock---then why did the FBI obstruct its own terrorism investigation in the weeks before 911? The FBI office in Minneapolis requested FISA warrants from HQ repeatedly in the weeks before 911 why were they denied?
Spock how did Bush try to protect America before 911?
A: This is a relic of the GOP's strategy since the 1870's. It's called waiving the bloody shirt, and they use it very effectively at every opportunity. Essentially, they use a crisis to their advantage.
During the era of Reconstruction, they reminded the people they were the party that fought the the war, and the Democrats were the sectionalist .
During the 1950's they used a modified version where the Dems were soft on Communism. This started in response to the fall of China to communism during the Truman administration. The soft on communism stuck, even though Korea, Vietnam, the Bay of Pigs, and the Cuban missile crisis were all during Democratic presidencies..
The term was kept around even after the end of the cold war, it was now just soft on defense. It didn't work as well this time without the spectre of a horrible enemy on the horizon. 9/11 changed that so they pulled the old bloody shirt out of the closet and have been waiving it ever since.
Why the Democrats never challenged it still confuses me. Perhaps at this point they feel it is too ingrained into the public conscious to be removed.
Q: Why do libs love socialized national defense so much? Don't private contractors do a better job than the Army?
Better equipment and no silly government regulations getting in the way of doing the job. Stop taxing me to death to pay for your protection: get a job and hire some mercenaries!
A: Private contractors? Call them what they are, MERCENARIES. I would not trust them to do anything IN MY NAME nor trust them to show allegiance to the U.S. over their companies. I saw what Blackwater did.
Taxes, that is the price you pay to live in relative freedom, DUDE.
Q: How much more money would European and Norwegian countries pay for national defense without the U.S.A?
Plus a few mid eastern countries?
Could there be as many countries benefiting and feeding at the U.S. treasury trough as there are who are not?
A: The U.S. defense budget is bigger than the next 12 countries' budgets combined. We account for a little over 50% of the world's defense spending. I think we are kind of subsidizing Europe's defense by spending so massively on defense. If we can cut other government programs, then defense spending should be on the table too.