Patriotism and History

[Carl Remick]

>From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
>
>Carl Remick wrote:
>
>>Yes, on a cost-benefit basis it would seem we have gotten absolutely
>>zilch national security for all the billions we've spent -- whatever
>>the exact number may be -- on glitzy weaponry.
>
>What are you talking about? The U.S. has successfully dominated the
>world for the last 50 years, destroying its longtime rival, crushing
>any ideological, political, or military challenge to its rule, and
>pacifying the domestic population. If that isn't success, I don't
>know what is. The downing of the WTC, while it may be the beginning
>of something very ugly, can hardly be considered the end of the
>imperium.
>
>Doug

Please note that I said national security, not imperial security.  The 
number one stategic aim of any sovereign state's armed forces is defense of 
the, er, homeland.  The fact that we have now created a *new* cabinent-level 
post to do the job that the secretary of defense was already supposed to be 
doing is ludicrous.  One quote in The Onion's Inquiring Photographer feature 
this week seems apt (quoting from memory):  "Do we have any nuclear weapons 
that could be used on, say, six or seven people?  Because I'd kind of like 
to nuke these bastards."  Our Zeus-like ability to fling bolts from the blue 
may have made for a strong dollar, but it has done nothing to protect the 
actual lives of the nation's citizens when the chips were down.

Carl

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp