I read the letter “Strong enough” by Thomas Gillooly regarding our military spending. It didn't take long to realize that he is deeply partisan, defending this administration's proposed action of cutting our military.
Gillooly claims our military budget is “more than twice what China, Russia and Iran combined spend on their armed forces.” Combined? I tried to confirm his assertions, but he appears to have some resource unobtainable by others.
Questions for you, Mr. Gillooly: Where did you get those military spending amounts? What source provided you those numbers? How did you find the accurate amounts that China, Russia and Iran spend on their militaries? Please provide your sources so we can all be as informed as you.
Then he describes our military as a “world policeman” engaged in “nation-building” and imposing “Jeffersonian democracy on tribal warlords.” What on Earth are you talking about, Mr. Gillooly? Could you provide us proof of this claim?
It's very scary when someone like Gillooly starts spewing misinformation (lies) while Islamic fascists and rogue nations covering the globe have a sole desire to destroy us! To me, it's abundantly clear that he is an individual who would read this (or any opposing response challenging his claims), then mutter to himself: “What difference does it make?”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- ‘Affordable’? Not for him
- Arnold’s garbage
- Pass GMO label bill
- ATI’s broken promises
- Report reactions III
- Wrong on immigration I
- Protesters not law-abiding
- Library funds
- Thinly veiled disdain
- A buck to pass?
- Cameras not the answer