video...HE PLANS ON DISARMING AMERICA

[Yurt]

his words mean exactly what they say....reducing the rate of technological weapons systems development is not synonymous with decreasing our military strength. If we still spend MORE than any of our potential enemies, we will continue to increase our military strength and increase our technology lead.

you are putting words/theories into obamas mouth. see that is your biggest weakness in defending him is that when presented with facts you use a novel theory called "common sense" to say what he would actually do. that doesn't fly when he expressly says the opposite, especially when it would be so easy for him to have expressly said what you wish he had said.

[retiredman]

you are putting words/theories into obamas mouth. see that is your biggest weakness in defending him is that when presented with facts you use a novel theory called "common sense" to say what he would actually do. that doesn't fly when he expressly says the opposite, especially when it would be so easy for him to have expressly said what you wish he had said.

he did NOT expressly say the opposite. He said he would "slow" spending on military technology. If one considers that the DoD budget for R&D alone is twice as much as any of our potential enemies' entire defense budgets, it is not too difficult to comprehend that "slowing" (as opposed to "stopping" or "drastically reducing" or "slashing" or "eliminating") would still allow us to continue to outpace the rest of the world in weapons technology development.

And I think it is quite illustrative that "common sense" is a novel theory to you.

[JohnDoe]

U.S. Military Spending vs. The World

U.S. military spending – Dept. of Defense plus nuclear weapons (in $billions) – is equal to the military spending of the next 15 countries combined.

These numbers show military expenditures for each country. Some say that U.S. military spending will naturally be higher because it has the highest Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of any country. The United States accounts for 47 percent of the world’s total military spending, however the U.S.’s share of the world's GDP is about 21 percent. Also note that of the top 15 countries shown, at least 12 are considered allies of the U.S. The U.S. outspends Iran and North Korea by a ratio of 72 to one.

http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm

[Yurt]

he did NOT expressly say the opposite. He said he would "slow" spending on military technology. If one considers that the DoD budget for R&D alone is twice as much as any of our potential enemies' entire defense budgets, it is not too difficult to comprehend that "slowing" (as opposed to "stopping" or "drastically reducing" or "slashing" or "eliminating") would still allow us to continue to outpace the rest of the world in weapons technology development.

And I think it is quite illustrative that "common sense" is a novel theory to you.

only your "common" sense

[retiredman]

only your "common" sense

is that all you have to say?

[glockmail]

maine, he clearly says he will slow the development of future combat systems. Combat systems save soldiers lives, like say the Predator Drone, that was recently fitted with hellfire missiles, it can surveil an enemy and take it out without harming a single US soldier. Putting the brakes on these types of programs put US soldiers in harms way unnecessarily.

Bingo.

[retiredman]

maine, he clearly says he will slow the development of future combat systems. Combat systems save soldiers lives, like say the Predator Drone, that was recently fitted with hellfire missiles, it can surveil an enemy and take it out without harming a single US soldier. Putting the brakes on these types of programs put US soldiers in harms way unnecessarily.

do even more combat systems than, say, McCain would support, therefore save even MORE soldier's lives? What about even more than that? Or even MORE that that? Does that mean that, if we COULD possibly spend even more on combat systems, that spending anything less than the theoretical maximum is synonymous with wanting to see our troops die?

If we increase our weapons technology gap, our soldiers will be safer tomorrow than they are today. Again...our DoD R&D budget is more than double any of our potential enemies. that is fact.

[WRL]

As you can clearly see only around 20% of what we spend is going towards defense, trying to close the deficit gap there is not only foolish but could have deadly consequences.

[Yurt]

anyhoo, bambam is bad for this country. weaken our military, pray to the motherland....and ..........................

MFM supports him.............nuff said

[retiredman]

As you can clearly see only around 20% of what we spend is going towards defense, trying to close the deficit gap there is not only foolish but could have deadly consequences.

what percent of our available outlays are spent on defense is irrelevant to the FACT that our R&D outlays are more than twice those of any of our enemies. Obama never said he would use DoD R&D to close the deficit gap, he merely said he would slow down the growth of it.

Again.... since it is clearly possible to spend even MORE than even the Pentagon wants to spend and, according to your simplistic. linear wisdom, such increased spending would decrease those "deadly consequences", are you willing to state that spending anything less than every dime available in the federal budget for defense could have "deadly consequences" and that even John McCain, therefore, wants to see our boys die?