We are, of course, amazed that our readers occasionally disagree with our brilliant and witty essays. In fact, sometimes quite a few readers think that The Outrage editors are wrong, misanthropic, idiotic, selfish, deluded, or all of the above.

Mother Outrage always told us that even the dull and the ignorant should have their say, so we've allowed space below for those dissenting opinions (and for shameless flattery).

Maybe some of that money spent on the military should be diverted to better border policing because our STUPID leaders have let sooooooooo many terrorists in our country that it's beyond ridiculous! Why should they care though, they have their ivory towers to stay in for protection!

The reason defense spending is so high lately is that the current regeme here in the U.S. has decided that high-tech equipment can replace the training and implementation of soldiers. They have done this for two reasons: a) The current world military situation is slated most definitely towards low intensitiy conflicts - i.e. "brown water" naval situations and urban/guerilla land conflicts. The belief is that by using highly trained and well equipped "special forces," we can avoid a prolonged conflict that uses up strategic resources and sponsers anti-American sentiment from domestic and foreign citizens. b) The current U.S. military is a completely volunteer force - because of current economic conditions (most specifically the booming technical industry in the private sector) most of the "quality" individuals are heading to well-paying private sector jobs. That leaves less-than-spectacular individuals to join the armed forces (not all are like this, but intelligent/motivated individuals are exceptions in the enlisted ranks these days). Enlistment levels are at an all time low, the attrition rate of those who enlist is high, retention rates of qualified NCO's and officers is at an all time low (due to politically motivated policies that are being shoved down their throats), and the overall morale of the military is at an all time low due to the overextension of a severly undermanned military.

On another note, this business about "$500 toilet seats" is nothing. For those of you who don't know, the US govenment operates in a fashion that requires that every agency spend its entire budget before the end of the fiscal year. If they do not, their budget for the next year is curtailed. This wasteful practice is called "budget justification." Regular defense spending is nothing like this - we still pay as little as possible to the lowest bidder. "The exception is not the rule."

Willy is right. It sounds like hes in the "Air Farce" like me. It pays well to be a Bast@!$. I hope I can still go to heaven after stealing all you hardworking taxpaying sheep's money$$$$$!

One thing to say. The best way to lose a fight is to be unprepared for one. As an added bonus, I get paid very well for carrying on the fascist regime bent on world domination!!!!

will be built in Pascagoula, Mississippi, which just so happens to be the home of Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott you thought that was big? I’ve just been informed that, in fact, everything made everywhere within the United States is *somebody’s* home state! In fact, it seems that everywhere you look, every district and precinct has a government representative somewhere! This is a bigger conspiracy than I had ever imagined

I've noted a couple of times you've mentioned the US unwillingness to reduce military might.

Military is a legitimate function of our government as Constitutionally ordained -- and a prime one. Further, the major military threat that we've faced over the last 40 or so years has *not* been reduced. Yes, the USSR dismantled, but communist China and its peripheral supporting countries has not. This has always been the major threat, because their motivation is much different than ours - or than was that of the USSR.

It remains appropriate to maintain sufficient military might to counter this very real threat - and to fine tune that power to peak performance, IMHO.

trapper

WHAM! That was a 2x4 - NOW DO I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION???

Wrong, wrong, wrong. One of the few legitimate functions of government is national defense. You must have brain atrophy after all those years of MADness with the USSR. The cold war was a relatively _safe_ period (Berlin airlift and Cubam missile crisis not withstanding). We now have seriously _shrunk_ our military, and very quickly. Are you aware that we couldn't even begin to mount the same sort of operation as Desert Shield/Storm with today's forces? And that was only a regional conflict? And we had lots of help?

In case you haven't noticed, the USA has dozens of enemies - either countries whose leaders make explicit their belligerence or countries whose leaders follow policies that are directly opposed to our interests. If the US were without the the military capability to inflict overwhelming overkill we would find ourselves being prodded and pushed by Iraq, Iran, Russia, and most emphatically China, just to mention the top of the list.

I am disgusted by the enormity of our government and the crippling tax burden I and all citizens struggle under. But the only part of that tax burden that gives me any satisfaction at all is the part that provides for national defense.

You got this one really, really wrong.

The federal government sucks the hind tit of a Yak!!!! May all their children be born naked and toothless!!!!!

Defense spending is one area where we do not want to cut as implied by your article. The percentage of the gross national product is now lower than at any time before WWII. I can only gather from your article that you do not consider China to be a threat to our security. High defense spending will help keep us out of war by keeping our enemies from miscalculating the cost of fighting us. Japan thought they could negotiate a peace treaty that was favorable to them. That is why they attacked Pearl Harbor. North Korea thought they could take over South Korea. Look at what that war cost us. It is a dangerous world out there. Would you rather spend money now and save lives later or save money now and spend more lives later as happened in almost every war in which we have been involved. I guess you want to make my grandchildren pay for it with their lives later on. This world is still a dangerous place, in spite of the satirical examples given in this article.

We do have need of a very strong military force there are still many groups in this world that could give us a lot of trouble. The problem is the cost greatly exceed the value of our military purchases. If the military could take a lesson from NASA and use off the shelf materials instead of $500 toilet seats we could have all of the military force we require at much less cost. When we cut the budget for NASA they did not stop their space exploration, they just reduced the cost.

I do not think that our people would work like they did in the 40's after Pearl Harbor. They have become too lazy, expecting the Government to provide everything. If we have a war with China do you think American workers could produce the products we obtain from there, no, they do not want to work anymore!

I was a soldier in World War 2 and I saw the way people worked then. That kind of patrotic spirit does not exist anymore. People have become more selfish and our generous Government is the cause of the problem.

Ray Meenen

I am a big fan of The Outrage. I agree with you 99% of the time. This is one of the 1%'s. Your Outrage "The Titanic Defense" was stupid bordering upon deceitful for the following reasons:

1.) Every dollar we've spent upon space exploration has returned at least a hundred fold to our economy and culture in the form of new technologies/products and just perhaps the prestige of being the only major player in spatial exploration.

In addition, being able to drop something significant on someone's head from 300 miles up can be a damned big deterrent, and ultimately cheaper than sacrificing some young Marines.

2.) Underwriting part of the expense of building cruise ships gives us the right to commandeer them as troop carriers in times of war. Maggie Thatcher did it when she had to kick foreign invaders out of The Falklands. If she hadn't been able to requisition the assets to move her troops in large numbers, the British body count would have been much higher.

Just ask any military expert on Airborne versus Seaborn invasions. If you look you will find that we underwrite expenses for a lot of Airliners being flown today for the very same reasons.

You folks didn't do your homework on this one!

The military, though expensive, is not bloated. China does now and will in the future pose a serious threat to our National Security. Remeber, after every major war this century we have gutted the military only to find ourselves on the wrong end of a howitzer!!! Walk tall and carry a big stick!