Missile Defense

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." -- Bejamin Franklin Don't get me started on the Patriot Act. If we would quit starting wars all over the place maybe that would ease the situation a bit. Our domestic policy, and foreign too, is one of economic ruin. It's bad enough we ruin our own economy which ruins the world's also automatically. We have to take an active part in completely economically subjugating the Third World via the IMF and World Bank. That is what needs to be changed. Anyone who wants to be a bad person and carry a gun is welcome in Arizona so you can easily see what that philosophy gets you personally. Countries are no different. A nuclear attack is mutual suicide. "The Outlaw Sea" is a good book. They could just sail a ship into any seaport and blow it up. Or hand carry it over for that matter. There simply is no way to cover all possibilities. So a missile defense system has zero ability to save lives and plenty of ability to blow us all up. A defensive weapon is one that you point at somebody else. An offensive weapon is one that somebody else points at you. I'm sure these antimissile missiles and antiantiantimissile missile missiles etc are all non-nuclear. We shouldn't need any antiantimissile missiles if we have no missiles to antimissiles against. The lack of weapons will be a better reminder of peace. The production of weapons, especially nuclear weapons, is terribly destructive ecologically. But the real answer is that the arms race is suicidal. My opponent argues that producing weapons will further the cause of peace, and further declares, "If that doesn't serve as an argument for peace, I don't know what does." Therefore destroying weapons will further the cause of war, and If that doesn't serve as an argument for keeping all weapons and making more weapons in order to further the cause of peace, my opponent doesn't know what does. See your local Quaker House. This wall http://www.tucsonweekly.com... is exactly the same xenophobic mentality, and that is where many of my opponent's arguments are coming from. Our government has a vested interest in xenophobia, racism and hate of all kinds. That way they can "protect" us from those other guys. My opponent's next vacation should be to some place people are different from herself. Hawaii is a million times better than Ft. Lauderdale any day of the year and has more tropical fruits and wildlife and better food than anywhere especially New York and better tailoring and better scenery and more rain and more skin cancer and more different kinds of people from more places too and they have never heard of Jane Austen although it was a matriarchal society at one time including the present except for all the foreigners. White people are a minority there. This is exactly what my opponent needs. People come back froom Ft. Lauderdale so how good can it be anyway. I believe my opponent is arguing that more weapons will increase America's stature and inspire Americans to achieve more economically. And that the government must protect us from fear or something like that. Has my opponent noticed where these fearful stories are coming from? The state has a vested interest in fear. "Terrorists," Communists. Marxists. Anyone different. If we didn't have governments we wouldn't have any of the problems my opponent is afraid of, especially fear itself. Any money spent on arms just expands the power and the evils of the Military-Industrial Complex. The remainder of my opponent's arguments could as easily be from an anarchist point of view. The benefits of scientific advancement from going to the Moon or Mars would far outweigh those of studying war if they were not trying to use space for military purposes also. Of course anyone can easily see the futility of an anti-missile system. All of her arguments intended to support the arms race, point to the elimination of the state. She is probably a communist too. We already know she is an atheist.