I kind of like the knights of the round table defense system.

There would have to be vast and expensive improvements in National Defense. It makes no sense to spend only 5% of our national budget on the main reason for the existence of a strong central government.

The mistake that this country made was not drastically slashing the defense budget after the end of the USSR. That was the time when this country graduated from a defensive posture to offensive militarism and even imperialism. Bush, Clinton and Bush II immediately launched into any number of imperialistic ventures backed up by our first class military. I'll never forget the comment made by the forgettable Madeleine Albright to Colin Powell in that she questioned what good was a military establishment if you don't use it. Militarism is killing this country, economically, spiritually, and historically, and by the last comment I mean that we are abandoning everything we believed in for the last two hundred years!

we spend to much on unrelated defense issues. I also say, during war, contractors should not make a profit.

i would reduce considerably goverment spending on the army and aim to create a smaller better trained army than a large ill trained one that relises on technology and numbers alone to win wars.

Sept. 10th 2001 Rumsfeld say "According to some estimates we cannot track 2.3 trillion dollors in transactions." "We know it's gone. But we don't know what they spent it on." says Jim Minnery of Defense Finance and Accounting Service. And the next day Flight 77 smashes into the very same Accounting Service of the Pentagon destroying their records? Freaky.

Every now and then, something truly humorously ironic comes along and it seems everyone misses the joke. The contingent of people most committed to cutting the defense budget of the US are the first ones screaming when their share of it is cut or curtailed. Mayor Bloomberg, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer and the NY Times form a chorus of outrage that their "terror funding" has been cut.

Now, admittedly, the Bush Administration has the most tin ear for politics I've seen in a long time. But, wouldn't a proper response (or maybe an objective journalist's fair question) be, "how properly have you spent the funds in the past and can you prove it, before we allocate more?" They (Chertoff) could even (or someone with a brain, and some fiscal logic behind the re-allocation) explain the rational thinking behind the changes in percentages. No. They sit there, dumbfounded by the criticism, which is as inevitable as the rain, and imply they'll have to get back to us. I feel like Casey Stengel, viewing the '62 Mets, "can anyone play this game? "

As president I would cut it drastically and reduce it hundreds of billions of dollars. I'll take that money and distribute it to those impoverished.

From the looks of our budget you would think that the first enumerated power of the United States Constitution was to provide retirement protection for people who don't save properly throughout their lifetimes, and healthcare for those who don't manage their money properly. This of course is not true. The first priority levied on the federal government is to defend our nation. Defense spending makes up a meager 5% (give or take a percent) of our budget and that is a travesty. Our military strength should directly reflect the economic strength of our nation; the greater the nation's wealth the greater the threat to our systems there will be. We need to increase the salaries our troops, increase their benefits and combat pay. We need to increase benefits for Veterans and families of the deceased. Surveillance capital both human and technological necessitates an increase of at least 300%. All this being said the money needs to be managed properly at the Pentagon. Being a bureaucracy it is riddled with waste and cronyism just as all the others. When it comes down to it however I'll take too many B-2's as opposed to a new state park or wasted tax dollars swallowed up by administrators in our failed Education system.

Increase our supply of weapons and bomb the Al Qaida headquarters.

Easy: Federation Starships, Zords, and tons of superheroes!

Marcus Aurelius said He who would have peace, let him first prepare for war. It was true in Imperial Rome and it is true now. This is not about a weapons race to extinction, it is about the fundamental responsibility of the state to protect its citizens from outside aggression. I oppose war for conquest and adventure, but a state without a viable defense is ultimately doomed.

Gotta be strong. I'm not naive any more. The world is full of people who are filled with murderous hate, and lots of them want to kill us. I'm against adventurous wars (such as against Iraq) but we have to be able to stomp when absolutely necessary.