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.