"Fence=no problems."

Your's Truly,
Chuck Woolery

For the geniuses who rated this item a 3 or less, look at the issues you rated a 5 and imagine a government which prioritized those issues over all else. You might want to set an alarm clock for 2008, you'll get the chance to vote for a liberal democrat in your primary then who agrees with you. By the time the general election comes around, though, you won't recognize the person for whom you had voted in the primary.

This is the most important political issue on this list. Without this, no other issues exist because the US would no longer exist. The only question is how pre-emptive a strike is ok with you. How many lives could have been saved had the US curtailed Japan's imperial ambitions in, say, mid-1941? How many Jews (not to mention the thousands of Gentiles) could have lived out their normal lives had Germany's (pathetically obvious) imperial ambition been squelched in the late 1930's?

You anti-war zealots, the Kosovo incursion was still ok with you? But, Iraq is a bad war. How convenient. If you didn't protest Kosovo, you are a hypocrite for protesting Iraq, because what's right is only right. Look, admit it: you don't like Bush and you're using Iraq to bash him. National security (i.e. national defense) is delineated, clearly in the US Constitution, under the authority of the President, the civilian commander-in-chief. I'm not saying you have no right to dissent. We need thoughtful, intelligent, non-partisan peaceniks in this country. If you protest Iraq, but turned a blind eye to Kosovo, you're not anti-war, you're anti-Bush.

I'm rating national defense relatively low because our nation is in a comfortable position globally at this moment. We are guarded by two walls of water. We have the most advanced technical armaments on the planet, and the best trained men running the system. I sleep pretty well at night, thanks to our strong national defense.

If you look at history the darkest times have followed when the major powers slacked of on there national defense. We need a strong military more than ever with all the problems that the world is facing including terrorisim. We need to be prepared for just about any contingency.

No one reasonably disputes the compelling need for a strong national defense. In fact, it is a mandate on the Federal Government. The disputes arise over how much to invest in the face of other demands for public resources and how to structure our defense forces to best meet existing and future threats. In some ways, the United States is fortunate that the Cold War threat ended shortly before the new global terrorist threat became substantial (though perhaps the changes are related). Nevertheless, this means one of our current challenges is to alter the defense structure to meet the new challenge, and any conversion costs money in relation to maintaining the status quo. This also means sacrifice in the short-term. On top of that, the American defense philosophy seems to be geared toward high-tech weapons so as to need fewer bombs and soldiers. This means more expense, but less American bloodshed. One should also remember that a nuclear deterrent force is actually cheaper than an equivalent conventional deterrent force. In other words less spent on defense and more on social programs. A few observations from reading the other comments: Standing down has often historically resulted in more conflict (eg between the world wars). Also, nations (like Costa Rica), which have no standing army, actually substitute security agreements for a defense force (as Costa Rica has with the U.S.). The bottom line is that defense is crucial if history is any guide to the future. Nevertheless, how best to plan for the future is still a matter of debate. For the U.S., the most likely major large-scale threat is from the Chinese who have been planning for such a conflict for many years (though this may never materialize). What is also clear is that the U.S. cannot continue to finance the policing of the globe. Some type of combined humanitarian and defense structure along the lines of NATO must be developed to better share these burdens within the rest of the developed world.

I think anyone who has ever looked through a history book describing any nation should be able to see the importance of this.

WE defend US, not everyone else.

The only area of the federal budget the government sees a return on investment. War on terror is priority #1 and we need the best and most sophisticated equipment to achieve victory. Yankee ingenuity.

without a strong national defense, our citizens cannot feel safe or be protected.

This should be a no-brainer. However, there is a whole part of the country who call themselves Democrats who we should let the United Nations defend everything. Come on, folks...most of member nations of the U.N. don't even have plumbing. I mean, they're still crapping into hole in the ground, and yet Democrats want them to defend us. Dream on, queers.

Why isn't this higher on the list? Is it because of the fact that people think that this war is "fictitious"? Believe what you want, but Bin Laden and his extremist friends brought this war onto us on 9-11, Bush did not bring it to us on March 19, 2003. We are at WAR, that's WAR!!! Muslims have publically DECLARED war on us, we need and must defend ourselves. Thank God we have a President who understands this, unlike Clinton who didn't (and dosen't) give a rats ass what happens to his people.

The issue, in my mind is not whether or not we should properly fund the Department of Defense- we damn well should! However, where exactly is our money going? The President proposed a nuclear missile shield at the State of the Union last month. Please!!! Our hard earned money is going to a cause that is going to prove as ineffective as border control. The terrorists themselves are already here folks. Whatever they want to do, they're going to do it. However, this is not about terrorists. It is about fear that Iraq will deploy his missiles. First of all, the Bush Administration has stated that too many of Hussain's biological weapons have been unaccounted for. Folks, a missile shield does not prevent biological weapons from being tranferred to the United States. And just how effective are these "shields"? According to my research, they are not very likely to prevent a missile attack. However, as long as it is going to the right place, national defense should be at the top of the list in the federal budget. I want the men and women who serve our nation to be cared for. I want money to be spent for EFFECTIVE devices for national defense. However, we must rebuild our forces. The idea that reducing our forces will set an example to the world is ludicrous, as it only fuels more hate among our enemies and makes us more vulnurable when they do attack. In the final analysis- I fully support necessary defense spending and defense buildup, but let's try and make it for effective purposes.

Someone going by the name of 1st_SFOD has directed statements at me about the War on Iraq this morning, quoting me as saying all kinds of things I never said about Saddam, about Saudi Arabia, and about 9/11. I'm sure the mistake is honest and well-intentioned. Those statements that 1st_SFOD objects to were probably made, by someone else. But if you want to see what my comments are about any issue, look on my home page - don't believe things you read second-hand.

If an enemy knows you an end them without trying there will be no war. A powerful "defensive" military is the key to peace. Deterance can only be when you are as strong as anyone else. And it works best when you are overwhelmingly stronger than any country. Take the missle defense system if we had that working right we wouldn't be dealing with N. Korea. Also the defense industry employs millions of Americans and I would rather pat them than put it in welfare. The best example of this was back in Rome during the pax romana. At that point every other empire/country knew the Romans would whip them without blinking, thus peace.

How could this be so low on this list?

definitely more important than gay rights, for example......

Though I have the utmost respect for military men and women, and recognize the need for a good army; I have to give this issue a single star compared to other issues. We currently have, by far, the strongest military in the world. We also spend more money on our military then all the developed nations in the world COMBINED: somewhere in the range of $379 billion (not including intelligence). I believe a lot less money should be spent on the military, but more money, benefits, and education should be given to soldiers. The majority of the money removed should be from the military-industrial complex. This is where politicians (mainly republicans) get campaign contributions by companies for awarding them contracts to work on, sometimes frivolous, projects. The best current example of this is the Star Wars missle defense program. This will cost trillions of dollars to make, threaten world stability, and in the end it won't even be effective because the science & technology to do it just don't exist.

the military ensures the existence of every other civic institution.

It has gained a bit of importance during these last few months. However, I'm looking at it historically. Too often throughout the Cold War years, president after president poured more money into our defense system from a threat that was all but nonexistant (to all realists) while they could have been helping the poor citizens of our country by helping welfare reform.

Anyone who can even imagine that a country the size of the U.S. could actually do without a strong, confident National Defense - that's DEFENSE as is protection, security, peace of mind as opposed to OFFENSE as in killing machine - is either a dreamer, on drugs or completely daffy. Clinton apparently was all these things and also more than willing to leave the doors wide open as he drifted off into his New Age dream world to decide what military base he was going to shut down next. While most government institutions seem to be in the business to lose money and can always use some trimming up, our military did not deserve the demoralizing shaft they received over the past several years. I guess the old saying that a soldier is never appreciated in times of peace is true. Kind of an interesting thing to ponder around Memorial Day, don't you think? And just one more thing - I find it fascinating that some of the same people who seem to dislike America so much are all for the disintegration of our national defense while at the same time seem extremely interested in the increase of immigration and international trade. My question is - do you sleep with your doors wide open? Didn't think so.

If abortion & death penalty is immorally, what then with defenses built to kill people, many of them innocent, in a future war? If Costa Rica can handle perfectly living without a national defense, which they've done since as early as 1949, why not the US & other NATO countries then? A start could at least be reducing the amount of money spent at defense. These money could better have been spent on immigration, international trade, reduction of the import taxes & increased global cooperation! :-) We all want a peaceful world, then we all have to take our share of the responsibility, & don't forget that the US is the prototype all over the world - that such a huge responsibility: I hope you're men for it!

WE'VE GOT A LOT OF CATCHING UP TO DO AFTER THE TREASON AND TREACHERY OF THE CLINTON YEARS. CHINA IS AN AGGRESSIVE ENEMY OF COLOSSAL PROPORTIONS. I HOPE THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION RECOGNIZES THIS.

Having a strong military force is critical to the security of our nation. Many say that we do not have an enemy we need to fight, therefore, we do not need a strong military. Well, we still have China which may become expansionary at any time. They are building up their military, so we should build ours down? Plus we still have Saddam in the Middle East and India and Pakistan who are testing new nuclear weapons. Bill Clinton wanted to sign into the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty which would have called for us to essentially disarm. Clinton said he wanted us to be an example to the rest of the world that disarmament is the way to go. Come on, we all know that other nations will jump at the opportunity to expand their stockpiles. To think otherwise is not being a good judge of human nature. No, we do not have one enemy, but in a uni-polar world, we have many troubled countries that could become potentially strong enemies for us. We must remain strong.

Obviously, the over-extension and demoralization of the military during the Clinton years is an important problem to address. I was pleased to see, however, that GWB has given signals to Dept of Defense people that they aren't about to be handed their 'dream budgets'. Bush is now instisting that budget decisions will be preceded by a thoughtful strategy about the overall U.S. approach to world affairs and military preparedness. Certainly it makes sense to fulfill Reagan's dream of a missile defense system, but given that the real threat to the U.S. is now terrorism, not long-range nukes, I am most hopeful that the "humility" GWB promised to bring to U.S. foreign policy will translate into less foreign intervention -- and therefore more modest defense spending, concentrated where it helps Americans most, and hopefully fewer pissed-off developing nations that see us as an enemy.

We need to rebuild our armed forces, not just in quantity, but quality. I left the Army in '92 becuase I couldn't imagine going to war under the orders of a draft-dodging coward. It is fine to disagree with the government, even with a war...but you don't turn your back on your fellow people.