Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site ea.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ea!mwm
From: mwm@ea.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Re: Star Wars Defense Plan - (nf)
Message-ID: <3400025@ea.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 20-Aug-84 19:29:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ea.3400025
Posted: Mon Aug 20 19:29:00 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 23-Aug-84 01:10:33 EDT
References: <1292@ihuxl.UUCP>
Lines: 36
Nf-ID: #R:ihuxl:-129200:ea:3400025:000:1413
Nf-From: ea!mwm    Aug 20 18:29:00 1984

#R:ihuxl:-129200:ea:3400025:000:1413
ea!mwm    Aug 20 18:29:00 1984

/***** ea:net.followup / oddjob!matt /  6:31 pm  Aug 18, 1984 */
>This is the kind of defeatist attitude which prevents progress in all
>areas.

Is the opposite attitude, which claims that a large enough military
budget will make us safer, leading to progress?

There is very little rational debate in your statements, Allen England.
Could you please think harder or move your remarks to net.flame?  I,
for one, will promise not to argue with you in that newsgroup.
___________________________________________________________
Matt		University	ARPA: crawford@anl-mcs.arpa
Crawford	of Chicago	UUCP: ihnp4!oddjob!matt
/* ---------- */

Of course, misreading someone statements isn't exactly the height of
rationale debate, either.

I haven't seen *anyone* claim that a larger military budget - or even a
better military, in this particular argument - would make us safer.  I
*have* seen statements, like Allen's, to the effect that spending money on
a defense would make us safer than not spending any money at all.  I've
also seen claims that a significantly smaller military budget would do bad
things to the economy.

The first seems obvious to me, given that we have a possible adversary. The
second makes sense, unless you start some other industry to create jobs for
the people that should be unemployed by such a cut.

Calling Alan irrational was uncalled for. Unrealistic, maybe, but not
irrational.