Conference back40::soapbox

    On this one, the Republicans have signaled that their plan to
    significantly increase defense spending is to freeze spending against
    further cuts planned by the Clinton Administration.
    
    I guess Republican math (not less equals more) is in keeping with
    Reaganomics math that cutting taxes means more tax revenues.  One can
    read the projections in the Reagan and Bush budgets to see what they
    claimed would flow in versus what actually flowed in.
    
    What bilge!
    
    (I will also say that I support further defense spending reductions, so
    I am happier with this compromise than I would have been with the
    Republicans' stated goal, though I'd prefer the Clinton cuts most.)

    
    the legislators that agree with you had their clocks cleaned
    for the most part, so your preferences probably won't be shared
    by a legislative majority.
    
    those who supported defense cuts in the '30s have the deaths
    of thousands on their hands. people in the guvmint with sufficiently
    long memories are determined not to be caught as we were in 1941 and 
    1950 again.

    (This picks up a thread from the last 'Box)
    
    By no stretch of the imagination are we weak.
    
    Mr. Holt, I remember the disarmament after World War I, leading to the
    isolationist movement in the face of Hitler's rise.  Where is that
    threat today?  When this topic came up before, no one offered a
    credible threat or reason why we need military power sufficient to
    fight the Soviet Union, or two Vietnam-style wars simultaneously.
    The *only* justification I have seen is that the Republicans are back
    on top, and they favor defense spending as a matter of dogma.

> Where is that threat today?

I can't recall which thread in the old box it was in, so I won't waste any
time trying to find it now, but a recall one in which someone asked
"Your world is simple, isn't it?", and you replied "Your world is scary,
isn't it?". And I replied, "Yes, Steve, mine is. Very Scary. I have little
trust for anything in the Eastern Hemisphere east of Western Europe and
North of the Equator."

That's a significant piece of the world that's a threat, Steve. Regardless
of your opinions about the Russian navy rusting at the dock. There is so
much obvious political and social instability in that part of the world that
I don't trust for one minute that "we're safe from harm", and an attitude
that makes that assumption in the interests of scaling back drastically
on military spending is an attitude that can quite clearly get us fried.
Like I said, I may be paranoid,, but if I'm right, you'll be just as safe
as the rest of us as a result, provided we don't scrimp on the military.

Do you honestly believe that there is no threat? Do you, like George,
feel that we haven't any enemies since we aren't at war with anyone?

Who would you like to have pull your nads out of the fire if you're wrong?

    Well here in Europe (a little closer to the heat than you I suggest) we
    are not running scared, even with people like Janivinsky (sp?) around.
    The attitude is more on of neighbourly concern for emerging countries
    going through very trying times.
    
    Perhaps you should come here and get a different view of things?
    
    martin 

    
    Hitler was below the fold on the page just before the classifieds
    until he bacame Chancellor.
    
    He was a curiosity, like Zhirinovsky is today. A ridiculous figure.
    
    You ask where the threat is today? Be glad we don't know yet, for
    once threats unmask themselves you can be assured that this unmasking
    will take place at a time and place and in a manner of the threat's
    choosing, and not necessarily under circumstances where we have time
    for a leisurely and considered response.
    
    We were so unprepared for WWII that we drilled recruits with
    broomsticks. In 1950 we sent a batallion to stop an NK division, with
    weapons not fired on a range or zeroed, with puny ineffective bazookas,
    and with men grown soft from occupation duty in Japan. They were
    slaughtered. Never did we suspect that the N Koreans would dare attack
    nor did we suspect that such a plan was under consideration. 
    
    Complacency is our greatest enemy. 
    

>    Perhaps you should come here and get a different view of things?

Thanks anyway. I'll pass.

I have no doubt that European outlooks on the matter differ, as they've
always had better proximity to the threats.

	Try Tom Clancy's latest novel, "Debt of Honor,"
        for a taste of post-Cold War surprises.  Good yarn
	and, though I don't much expect antagonism with
	Japan to go this far, it gives one pause about cutting
 	the military excessively.

	Of course, eliminating govt waste and fraud would go a long
 	way to restoring solvency, and the military should 'fess
	up to its share.  See the Grace Commission report for more.

	-Jerry

    "For they will cry peace peace...and then sudden destruction"

    Anent .4: Jack, it is not my "opinion" that the Russian Navy lies
    rusting at anchor, it is a fact.  The intelligence community doesn't
    even have to use its satellites to verify the rust blooms in the water; 
    any tourist can go see.
    
    Yes, this is still a dangerous world; I never suggested it wasn't.
    Do not try to equate reduced defense spending with disarmament or
    increased defense spending with security.  (The Republicans, I remind
    you, are currently talking about freezing cuts.  By your rhetoric, you
    ought to find that unacceptable.)  But the nature of the threat has
    changed, and I say that fully mindful of the Gulf War, the Bosnian War,
    and the Korean crisis.
    
    My question is, if a terrorist explodes a bomb in the World Trade
    Center, whom do we nuke?  If the Palestinians bomb an Israeli, how many
    divisions to we send in?  If a Caribbean island needs democracy
    restored, where do we carpet-bomb? How many thousands of tanks do we
    need in Europe to protect against the invasion of Romanian orphans?
    
    Remember that the Pentagon's job is to assess threats and recommend
    spending levels.  By nature paranoid, the planners assume things like
    multiple wars in opposite hemispheres and rampant equipment failures
    necessitating multiple redundancy (and this within the Army/Navy/Air
    Force triad structure, which is inherently redundant in the first
    place).  Remember how many nuclear warheads we targeted at Moscow? I do
    -- it was over 80.  As Senator Kennedy said just before President
    Reagan's historic treaties with President Gorbachev, "We have enough
    warheads to make the rubble bounce."  The beauty of the system, from
    the Pentagon's viewpoint, is that there was no limit to the need for
    more weapons.  They more candid of them admitted it themselves.  Given
    that we nearly blew out our economy playing the arms-race game, we had
    too much before.  
    
    Yet the last time the Republicans were doling out the dough (no pun
    intended), they gave the Pentagon considerably *more* than they asked
    for.  I think we do not need to re-arm, or even maintain the force
    levels we have now; given the budget problems we have, we are risking
    wrecking ourselves economically, which is what the communists wanted
    all along.  Why give it to them now?

    Anent .8: Jerry, you are trying to scare us with a Clancy novel?
    
    Did you read _Red Storm Rising_?  Do you feel it is now, or ever was, 
    a description of a credible threat?

    Wordy:
    
    There still is a threat to world peace mainly through disassembling of
    the former Soviet Union and the proliferation of arms.
    
    I agree that we should get more "bang for our defense buck" and while
    we may not need 100 of [insert weapons system name], we may need 50 and
    with the savings use that to fine tune our 'terrorist detecting'
    capabilities.
    
    My own personal opinion of the New World Order centers around the
    possibility of a small, secret and well trained and equipped terrorist
    group holding the world 'hostage'.  Who knows, maybe that's where the
    Antichrist will emerge from...   

    
    My guess is that Defense Appropriations is about the least popular
    portion of the Contract with America, and not much will happen.
    In fact, with a Line Item Veto going before it, they probably don't
    have to do this.
    
    Where are the big Bad Guys ?  The public, including conservatives,
    look out on the horizon before supporting military programs.  And
    anyway, foreign policy has declined in importance in American
    politics, as Bush and Clinton have both found out.  Methinks the
    Republicans will let this one go more easily than any of the others.
    
    Just a guess.  bb
    

    Anent .12: Ron, I agree with your assessment of the threats.
    But my question remains: how many nuclear-power aircraft carrier task
    forces will we need to protect ourselves from kidnappers?

    .14
    
    Wordy:
    
    Against terrorism, there are advances dramatically being made, but we
    haven't reached "World Class" status yet...
    
    Again, I believe we agree on:  we don't need X of [weapons system], but
    actually Y, being some quantity less than X.  I am against defense as
    pork for pork purposes only, as was the Grace Commissions report.

    If all is well, why is Russia making all manner of nuclear subs and
    missiles, and conventional weapons?  They are outproducing us 2:1
    currently (overall).
    
    -steve

RE: 74.16 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum"

> If all is well, why is Russia making all manner of nuclear subs and
> missiles, and conventional weapons?  They are outproducing us 2:1
> currently (overall).

The US is making one (1) sub currently.  This means Russia is making two
(2) subs.  I doubt very much if this is a problem,  seeing how Russia has 
sold as scrap two aircraft carriers,  a bunch of guided missile cruisers,  
dozens of subs,  a stack of smaller warships,  etc.


Phil

    Outbuilding us two subs to one?  Steve Leech, aren't you embarassed to
    be caught like that?

    does that sub come with meatballs and provolone?

They do tend to watch lots of videos on subs, so they might have Meatballs.
Was Stallone in Provolone?

    The russian sub comes with nukes and pickles.  They are producing three
    per year from what I heard.
    
    Better technology, too...

    
    hmm.. a russian sub with herring in sour cream and pickles
    would make more sense to me.

Russian pickles have better technology than American pickles?!  It is to laugh!

    You ridicule leech, yet you don't pick up on the title of his note.
    How much money are we sending russia to "stand down"?  I heard we're
    helping to pay ex-sov officers retirement.  And Glen is yacking about
    WELFARE in this COUNTRY.  He should be livid.
    
    Re: Hayes.  Who's buying all that russian "junk"?  NKorea?
    Aren't we giving them a couple billion so they don't develope nukes?
    Whatta joke.

    
    RE: .22
    
    No one in their right mind would eat herring in sour cream and pickles.
    
    The correct combinations are:
    
    Sour cream and onions   or  Wine sauce and onions...
    
    

    
    Creamed herring - yum !  But it's not Russian.  They stole it.
    
      bb

    re: .17 and .18
    
    If you were paying attention to what I wrote, the 2:1 ratio was the
    overall total...it may be as high as 3:1 overall, but since I don't
    have my statistics handy, I wanted to be conservative.
    
    I didn't break it down per category...but I will when I dig out the
    right source.
    
    -steve  

    Oh my God, they're building THREE subs!  We should surrender...!
    
    Seriously, *you* laughed at *me* when I suggested buying the Soviet
    warheads.  You're not laughing now, are you?  At, say $1,000,000 a
    megaton, I would sleep much better (and frankly, so would everyone else
    on Earth) knowing we had them under lock and key, not Saddam or Jong
    Il, even at that high price.

    Actually, the number I remember from my source was one sub per
    month...but enough of the sub strawman.  The fact remains that this
    economically collasped country is building 2-3x the armaments we are,
    which include nuclear warheads/missiles, subs, tanks, and the like. 
    And we are sending them billions of $$ in aid.
    
    What's wrong with this picture?
    
    Never mind, go back to sleep.  All is well.  We certainly don't need
    the military any more.  Cold war is over and all that.  Let's just keep 
    cutting the defense budget.
    
    
    -steve

    
    but they are building them for Iran, right?
    
    I hear the Iranians want to use them to salvage
    the nuke warheads from sunken Soviet boomers.

    
    
    Nelson Mandella today declared that South Africa will continue to sell
    arms to aid in its "re-building process"...
    
    South Africa never had a nuclear program.... right? That's what they
    kept telling us.. right???
    
     Let's all go back to sleep now...
    

    Andy, are you citing South Africa as an example of a threat to the US?

    
    
    If they have nukes... why not?
    

    Is England a threat to the US?  What about France?

    well, you did nick all those French wine names......

    
    RE: .34
    
    Boy!! You're quick... 

    Andy, do you consider England and France threats to the US?

    
     What definition of the word "pipeline" are you having trouble with?

    I see you won't answer the question again, Andy.  Very well, I'll
    answer it for you: you see South Africa, England, France, and every
    other country with nuclear weapons as a threat to the US, because the
    weapons can be pipelined to other, unfriendly hands.
    
    First, are you aware of the difference between stable countries, such
    as England and France, and unstable ones such as Ukraine and Russia?
    I have trouble with you equating them as pipelines.
    
    Second, are you aware of how the weapons are safed in those countries?
    (Hint: The US had a lot to do with devising the command/control
    procedures in the European countries.)  I have trouble with you
    equating those procedures with the procedures in Ukraine and Russia.
    
    Third, and this is the point under discussion, how much should we
    increase defense spending, and in what area, to make us safe from this
    threat?  I would very much like to hear your thoughts on this matter.

    	Different thread, but I like that some senators are making noise
    	to get us to consider dropping ties with the UN, or at least take
    	a renewed look at the value of our association with that impotent
    	organization.

    RE: .40
    
    Agreed! It's about time...
    
    -b

I'm not defending the UN, but it's silly to call it impotent.  Since the end of
the Cold War, the UN has sent peacekeeping forces all over the place (with
mixed success of course).  When the USSR was still around, not much escaped
the veto of the the Security Council's permanent members.

    
    Um, gee, folks.  Most of the debate is about the much-delayed
    military pay increase.  No raises there for 5 years.  Enlistments
    are down.  A welfare mother does better - enlisted men and women
    would be below the poverty line in dollars, but aren't so listed
    because of food/uniforms/barracks, etc counted as benefits.
    
    The weapons stuff is mostly a debate about R&D, and the numbers are
    not large compared to the budget.
    
      bb

>I'm not defending the UN, but it's silly to call it impotent.  ...
>When the USSR was still around, not much escaped
>the veto of the the Security Council's permanent members.
    
    	I rest my case.  TYVM.  
    
    	I'll throw in the UN's effectiveness in Bosnia for good measure.

    >the UN has sent peacekeeping forces all over the place (with
    >mixed success of course).
    
    With pretty poor success really... do you consider Somalia a
    mixed success? Or Yugoslavia? I consider them disasters...
    
    The only "bright spot" was Kuwait... which was really Amercians
    with the UN along for the ride. GHWB involved the UN more to
    keep public opinion in tow than for any military purpose.
    
    The UN _is_ impotent without US military might... so what the
    hell do _we_ need it for? The UN has everything to gain from
    the US, what does the US gain from it? (Answer: squat)
    
    -b

Joe, I don't follow you.  Are you saying that a UN that sends peacekeepers
hither and yon is as impotent as a UN that passes no substantive SC resolutions?

    	re .46
    
    	That very little could excape the SC is an excellent example
    	of the UN's impotence.
    
    	And I wouldn't rely on the peacekeeping missions to prove UN
    	effectiveness!

               <<< PEAR::DKB100:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 14.117                        News Briefs                        117 of 117
CALDEC::RAH "the truth is out there."                19 lines  28-NOV-1994 14:30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- A South Korean company has concluded a
    deal to buy two Russian aircraft carriers for scrap metal, the
    company said Friday.
    The Minsk and Novorossiisk, stripped of weapons and
    communications systems, are expected to arrive within several
    weeks, said Park Jong-nam of Young Distribution Co. Ltd. The price
    of the deal was not immediately available.
    The two 37,000-ton aircraft carriers, built in 1979 and 1984,
    were the mainstay of the Soviet Union's Far East Naval Fleet, but
    with the end of the Cold War, Russia decided to decommission them.
    Arms-related deals cause concern on the tense Korean Peninsula,
    where more than 2 million soldiers from North and South Korea face
    each other across the world's last Cold War frontier.
    Over the past few years, Russia has sold off its aging and
    deteriorating ships for scrap to countries including North Korea,
    causing concern in neighboring countries that the ships might be
    repaired and used.
    
    

| <<< Note 74.40 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Oracle-bound" >>>



| or at least take a renewed look at the value of our association with that 
| impotent organization.

	Takes one to know one.....

Joe, I don't see how you can say the UN *is* impotent because the permanent
members of the SC *used to* veto everything.

    	Always has been impotent.  What have they done recently that has
    	been a success?

    
    Sorry Steve, don't have the time to get into it right now.... back on
    my project...
    
      Regardless of the stability of these nations, it is feasible for such
    things to happen. There have been many documented instances where
    things got "lost"... including nuclear materials (I know... not the
    same as a bomb... but it is feasible).
    
      BTW.... I love how you equate the present South Africa with nations
    such as UK and France... S.A. maybe that for now, but give it time....
    it'll revert like it's northern neighbors...

.52
    
 >     BTW.... I love how you equate the present South Africa with nations
 >   such as UK and France... S.A. maybe that for now, but give it time....
 >   it'll revert like it's northern neighbors...
    
    
    In uttering that dire prediction, don't forget to skip over South
    Africa's immediate northern neighbor, the stable and democratic nation
    of Botswanna.
    
    Kit

    
    
    Is that the lovely, democratic nation where the government is
    confiscating all lands belonging to white owners?

    In Reply .31, Andy brought up South Africa (in a topic discussing the
    Contract With America's part about significantly increasing defense
    spending).  Since then, he's backpedaled furiously, as you can see...
    
    I guess, then, the question regarding .31 is: What's your point, then?
    
               <<< PEAR::DKB100:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 107.13         HMS VANGUARD...the arms race continues...           13 of 13
SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Less government, stupid!"         37 lines  29-NOV-1994 10:55
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    RE: .12
    
>    Listen, Andy, you cited the nuclear threat of South Africa as a reason
>    for increasing DoD funding.  When I asked you about England and France,
>    you added them to the list.  Now, when I point this out here, you wuss
>    out and say you only meant the threat was "feasible," as if you didn't
>    take it as a serious threat.
 
       I stated that, yes, S.A. can be considered a possible threat because
    as far as I can see, they are NOT as stable as other "allies". Go back
    and read what I inputed. I never stated that this should be a reason
    for increasing DOD funding. I tried to show a possible threat... NEVER
    did I say that spending should be increased!! You took it and flew with
    it (as you usually do). I made an inference of plausibility. You
    ASSUMED!!! You call me a "wuss" because I wouldn't play your game? get
    real!!
         
  >  Maybe I wouldn't have to "rathole" so much if you wouldn't run down
  >  that rathole when your statements are held up to scrutiny.
   
     Your "scrutiny" is shallow at best....
    
     
   > If you don't have the courage to see your views exposed here, don't try
   > using them as a justification for spending more tax monies on defense.
   > Don't waste my money *or* my time!
    
      What has courage got to do with this? My views "exposed"???? You
    ASSUME again!! I don't really have the time to spend "defending" myself
    in the box... If you want, we can get together face to face and I'll
    rub your nose in your innuendo and rat-holing!!! Till then, why don't
    you be like Meowski and pick up the "towel" you'll think you've won and
    grow up a bit...
    
      "don't waste my time"???? You give yourself much more credit (in your
    own mind) than you're due...
    

    
    
     Ah yes... the limo-liberal think-speak....
    
    Clarifying is backpedaling... 
    
    
    >  -< Well squirmed >-
    
     Grow up....
    

    Yes, well, in a topic discussing the need for increasing defense
    spending, when you bring up South Africa, then willingly add England
    and France, and then say you didn't mean that we ought to increase
    defense spending in response to these "threats," yeah, I'd call that
    backpedaling.

    
    
    Wordy starts his very own towel collection!!!!
    
    Will it rival Meowski's??????
    
    
      Guaranteed!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    

    
    Nah, Jong can't hold a candle to George.
    
      bb

    Re: .58
    
    Take it to the ring.  Or take a blood pressure pill.  Or both.

    Just because it has it's own building doesn't make the UN impotent.

    
    RE: .60
    
    Extra exclamations points are there for emphasis....
    
    Don't like my emphasis? Hit NEXT/UNSEEN....
    
    Don't ASSUME I need pills or a ring...
    
    I take my frustrations out in my aerobics class...
    
    The day I let the likes of Wordy upset me is the day.... what is that
    place that freezes over??
    
    
    Ooooooops!! You can't NEXT/UNSEEN... can you? You're a moderator... how
    silly of me... 

    Touchy touchy touchy.

    
    
    I rest my case....
    

	You can rest your case, but it's evident that you have refused to
address Steve's claims. Could it be that they really are true? 


Glen

    i'm a staying out of this one.

| <<< Note 74.66 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>

| i'm a staying out of this one.



	Thems words I never thought I would read from you... :-)

>| <<< Note 74.66 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>
>| i'm a staying out of this one.
>Thems words I never thought I would read from you... :-)
    
    my momma left me with at least a lick of cents.

 so many puns, so little time.

    try it baby. you'll luv it.

    There are certain elements in even our allies ranks who would be
    considered dangerous if they had access to our superior weaponry and
    intelligence.
    
    I can see where Andy was going with his line of thinking.  Since the
    new change over in SA, I think it'd be prudent for the US to closer
    review DOD expenditures on their behalf given the political and
    terrorist inclinations of their current President.
    
    If a communist/socialist government would come into power in either
    England or France, we'd better review our DOD expenditures and exposure
    in light of that political development.
    
    Wordy, you an ace at broadbrushing and labeling and generalizing. 
    Course that goes with the limolib agenda.  The answer to every problem
    is MONEY!  Except of course when it comes to giving incentives for
    businesses [the true EVYL EMPIRE!]

    
    
    
    Two Republican senators want to increase defense spending by 90 Billion
    over five years.
    
    The written Pentagon response, "Any suggestion that there is a defense
    deficit is wrong."
    
    

    
    The Clinton administration has proposed a $25 billion increase also.
    
    C'mon - no pay raise in 7 years !  They haven't got a choice.
    
      bb

    Well, I think the Clinton Administration is caving in with their
    proposed $25 billion increase, even though (1) it's over 6 years, and
    (2) it's for things I have absolutely no argument with, like pay raises
    and readiness increases.
    
    But there you have it -- even the PENTAGON says they don't need the
    money!  Why the heck do we need to give it to them?

     That's funny: it wasn't more than a month ago that Perry was saying we
    weren't ready to fight a war in two theaters...

    Apparently the Pentagon and buddies want to keep investing in older
    technologies that are not only becoming obsolete but are very
    expensive.  The Army wants new tanks.  The Navy wants great big
    aircraft carriers (aka sitting ducks) and subhunters.  The Air Force
    wants more fighters.  The thing is, missile technology has reached the
    point where they can find subs better than subhunters and outfly most
    human-piloted fighters.  It's not enough for the armed forces to
    embrace the electronic age, they need to shed the mechanical age.

    
    RE: aircraft carriers (aka sitting ducks)
    
    How would you get fighter/bomber support to a theatre of operations
    quickly without a permanent land-based airfield available?
    

    Apparently VTOL technology is becoming more of a reality; that would
    allow smaller aircraft carriers, as opposed to the enormous beastie
    currently under development.

    vtol has been a reality for quite some time.  vtol aircraft are called
    helicopters.

    yeah, them, too.

    Re: Note 74.76 by DTRACY::CHELSEA 
    
    No.  Missle technology while impressive is nowhere near that good. 
    Another problem is that you have to get the missle near enough to get
    to the target, ... that requires a platform, be it plane, tank, or sub.
    
    The best soviet SAM in wide deployment (SA-12) has virtually no chance
    of downing an F-117 Stealth Fighter, and only a 20% chance
    (theoretical) of downing the much larger F-15.  If the F-15 knows of
    the SAM threat, counter measures can be taken, making the chance of
    succesful engagement even lower.
    
    Most hunter missles have maximum ranges in the the 60 km range.  So you
    have to get something to carry the missle close enough to get a lock.
    
    Carriers are 'sitting ducks' except that they project their force to
    prevent anybody from getting close enough to get a missle off. How
    else are you going to get an airfield near where there is trouble.?
    
    /jim
    

    Re: .82
    
    >Missle technology while impressive is nowhere near that good. 
    
    That's not what the article said.
    
    >that requires a platform, be it plane, tank, or sub.
    
    Yes, but those platforms would be tailored for missile delivery.  They
    wouldn't be tailored for anachronistic tactics.  (This would tend to
    make them smaller and cheaper to build.)
    
    >If the F-15 knows of the SAM threat, counter measures can be taken,
    
    Do those countermeasures consist of the human pilot trying to outfly
    the missile?  Or do those countermeasures consist of things like
    jamming and/or distortion?  The article was saying that the pet plane
    project that Air Force is pushing wasn't as effective at dodging
    missiles as some other type(s) of planes.
    
    >So you have to get something to carry the missle close enough to get a 
    >lock.
    
    Yes, but not a great, big expensive sub with all sorts of equipment
    that mostly isn't effective in locating subs.
    
    >except that they project their force to prevent anybody from getting 
    >close enough to get a missle off.
    
    They can try to prevent penetration of their zone.
    
    Missiles are relatively small and relatively cheap to produce, which
    means their technology should be advancing at a pretty rapid clip.

    
    Well, the House is going to start on this shortly (still in committee).
    Bonior was waxing irate on the floor last night abouts how the majority
    isn't allowing adequate time for debate (10 hours) given that "this is
    one of the most important issues the 104th Congress will face".  "They
    (pointing at Armey) will jeopardize their nation's security, just so
    they can punch another little hole in their Contract summary.  But you
    cannot defend you country playing ticket conductor..."
    
    Actually, I think the honorable gentleman from Michigan is warming to
    his role as minority whip.
    
      bb

	Did you see the same thing I did?

	Instead of talking about the issues raised, the Dems WHINED 
about the rules.  What I liked was during the Special Orders part of
the Congressional session, a Republican mentioned how much time was 
spent on debate in Congress about Haiti, the change in policy in
Somolia, and a few other things.

	Bonior, IMHO, has become the minority WIMP.

ME

    Whining is better than winning. Give me dems whining anyday.
    
    -b

This is very true.

ME

    
     For all the hyperbole, the debate is between Clinton's 246B budget
    proposal and the 253B GOP alternative.
    
     But from listening to the parties, the difference is whether the
    universe is saved.
    
     bb

| <<< Note 74.88 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>


| But from listening to the parties, the difference is whether the
| universe is saved.

	Oh great.... they can't save the country, so they want to try and save
the universe.....

    
    The Democrats, aided by some Republican crossovers, quietly scrubbed
    most of the SDI stuff in the bill, before passing it.  Aside from
    some shuffling around, it's not much different than the Clinton-
    Perry requests.  The biggest difference is probably the GOP anti-UN
    provisions.  The raise, the modernization/readiness, the housing,
    is all basically not in dispute.
    
    This bill turns into a kitten.  I think this is because more Defense
    is perceived as the least popular of the Contract promises.
    
      bb