From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: Military Strength
Date: Mon Jan 24 18:39:47 1994

Ah, I seem to have failed in vocalizing myself properly.  In answer to 
your question.  Yes, I do feel fairly safe walking the streets.  However, 
this has absolutely nothing to do with the current state of US law 
enforcement.  I'm just always left alone, and half the people who might be 
a problem, I probably know.  No, I'm not a macho asskicker, and I'm not 
particularly proud of all the people I know, I'm simply from the city.  
I've survived 25 years without a scratch (at least a serious one), and I'm 
just what you would call numb.  I don't think about what I can't control.
  But, I'm straying from the main point.  There's obviously a 
misunderstanding about the contents of my post.  I never meant to 
insinuate that a military buildup was in any way corrolated to increased 
domestic safety.  The point was, as was evinced in my examples, that a 
large military was a good defense against Outside (of the US) threats.  
However, I would also point out that the military has served numerous 
functions inside the country to ease civil unrest.
  Honestly, I think a division of marines armed with heavy assault rifles 
might have had just an teeny effect on the longevity of the LA riots.  I 
know I'd damn sure stop throwing rocks if I was looking down the wrong end 
of an M-16.  In addition, the military has also shown its willingness and 
effectiveness in dealing with non-military crisis.  They provided 
architectural and humanitarian relief in the MidWest during the floods, 
they helped rebuild a sizable portion of the Florida coast after the 
hurricane, and we're likely to see their presence soon in LA if the damage 
proves to be extensive enough.
  So, in summary, although my main point was not the military's domestic 
effectiveness, it has shown it's worth in that aspect as well.  Certainly 
I don't expect much help from the military if I'm being mugged, however it 
does make me a little more comfortable to know that if the neo-nazis, or 
any other violent, radical, lunatic group decides to go on a rampage, the 
military will be more than happy to shoot them for me.
  Also, I would also like to mention that although the military's budget 
is incredibly high, it doesn't just reflect its size.  It also reflects 
its technological level.  The Gulf War presents a strong justification for 
their research spending.  When our equipment and technology reach a level 
which is so high that having a war with the third (at least then) army in 
the world sees less wounded from combat then people shooting themselves in 
the foot or falling off boats, its difficult to say the money wasn't well 
spent.  Should we have been there in the first place?  As I've said 
before, it's imaterial, because none of us could stop it.  However, if 
people were willing to go over there because their government ordered them 
to, it seems to me that that government has the responsibility to protect 
them to the best of its ability (i.e. funding research/development for 
military technology.
Raven

P.S.  My thanks for your well thought out criticisms, and I invite more.  
It's a fool who only listens to himself.  He'll never know when he's wrong 
or has missed an important key to his thinking.  Please, I invite more of 
such critiques, it's a refreshing change to mindless flames.  What do you 
think of the argument.  Am I missing something?

Later,
Raven  /\
      /--\
     /    \