More Important-National Security

[diamond]

or the Economy?
For me its National Security..
I mean what would it matter if times were great and a nuclear bomb went off down the street or you were on a flight and some madman yelled-"THIS IS A HI-JACK!"..holding a gernade?

Sometimes its not the economy my greedy friends, its about security..feeling safe enough to wanna spend your cash

Out-
DB9

 

[diamond]

If you plan to vote plez explain your position..
If your position does not suit me I will argue w you later..

thank you

DB9

 

[STING2]

Without security you can't really have a functioning economy if the country is open to endless attack and threat of being wiped off the face of the earth, or taken over by a foreign power, like so many countries through history. If you can't defend yourself, your not going to have an economy or a country.

 

[Hi Bias]

Are you speaking for the Iraqis or the Palestinians?

 

[STING2]

For your info, Palestine is not a country yet, and when it comes to Iraq and the Persian Gulf, Iraq is the aggressive nation. A few of the countries that Iraq has, unprovoked, invaded and or attacked in the past 15 years: Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel. In addition Iraq has failed to comply with 16 UN resolutions passed under chapter 7 rules, in regards to their invasion of Kuwait. From a legal standpoint, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait still has not ended.

 

[diamond]

Are you speaking for the Iraqis or the Palestinians?

Well I promise you this -
Ask any Iraqi or Palestinian right now.."hey I have a winning lotto ticket and u will be financially secure the rest of your life BUT your nation will not be safe nor your countrymen or children , would you like this tick. It will make you very rich"?
or
"Guess what- I can guarantee your country peace, happiness and tranquility.. Your countrymen will live long joyus lives w their families.. Your country will be safe and secure..it will just cost you that winning lotto ticket, that was just given you..Can I have that ticket?

How fast would that Iraqi or Palestinian give up that ticket..for all the money in the world?

Peace-

DB9

 

[melon]

We could have both, you know, but Dubya clearly has no domestic agenda. The war is what keeps him floating. Too much like his father.

Melon

 

[diamond]

Melon,
Young fella.
The Bushes had nothing to do w this topic, nor the trees or shrubs..

thank
u

DB9

 

[theSoulfulMofo]

Being poor...

or

Being poor and paranoid.

 

[diamond]

Being poor...

or

Being poor and paranoid.

Soulfo-
Very well put..
Simply stated
DB9

 

[BAW]

I've had to roll coins to pay my bills in the past...I can do it again. I'd rather bring my kids up poor but safe.

I would love a strong economy where I don't have worry about losing my business or seeing my investments shrinking day by day but I would trade all of that to feel safe and know my family is safe.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Are they really mutually exclusive Diamond?

 

[STING2]

We can certainly have both, and in reality do to a certain extent. But you can't have a great economy long term without first being secure.

 

[hiphop]

We can certainly have both, and in reality do to a certain extent. But you can't have a great economy long term without first being secure.

Yes, true. The question is how far you go so your country stays secure. You know UN Charta 42/ Art.7.

 

[nbcrusader]

You ask a difficult question Diamond regarding National security, because pre-9/11 the vast majority of our population who was too young to be eligible for the Vietnam draft have lived in a relative fear-free society.

 

[cell]

what baw said. i voted national security.

 

[BVS]

This question is somewhat minute. You make it sound like right now the choice is either a or b. Only the greediest of people would say the economy is more important, by the way you worded the question. But the thing is safety can never be guaranteed, it's never really a tangible thing. When the economy is good people see and feel it. We've been fortunate enough that very little has happened on our soil, but that doesn't mean we live in a guaranteed safe nation. We could have a bubble surrounding this nation that would protect us from any missile that came our way, but they'd find a way to attack from within our boundaries. We found that out the hard way. So then we up security and they'll attack our water supply, then they'll up that and they'll try something else. We'll always have a weak spot and any one who wants to harm us will find a way to attack that weak spot. Maybe the priorities should change somewhat. Maybe we need to find a way to come to an agreement with nations that aren't exactly our "friends". I don't know the answer, but I think this question is somewhat narrow. Just my opinion.

 

[melon]

You ask a difficult question Diamond regarding National security, because pre-9/11 the vast majority of our population who was too young to be eligible for the Vietnam draft have lived in a relative fear-free society.

This brings up an interesting point I read in the news today. Younger people are more in favor of the war on Iraq (70%) than senior citizens (50%). The decisive factor is likely the fact that America, since Vietnam, has certainly lived a very sheltered and privileged lifestyle. 9/11, to young people, could be considered a kind of "loss of innocence," but older people already had lived through World War II and other events that showed that such a utopia was illusory.

Melon

 

[melon]

We can certainly have both, and in reality do to a certain extent. But you can't have a great economy long term without first being secure.

Yes, but we can't wait years upon years with a stagnant economy and no jobs! Dubya also clearly has no plan for fixing this, aside from the same old joke of upper class tax cuts, corporate welfare, and Federal Reserve rate cuts--none of which are working.

We are certainly back to Bush, Sr., who had no domestic agenda and was in denial over a recession, diverting all of his attention to Iraq. Technically speaking, folks, we are not in a recession right now.

You *can* have both, and I don't know what you're talking about us not being "secure." Not to trivialize 9/11, we have *one* U.S. soil attack in the last sixty years (*one* attack on continental U.S. soil in the last 130 years), and we're crying that the sky is falling! Unless Bush and his cronies really are idiots with one track minds, I am baffled as to why we can't tackle our economy and increase national security simultaneously.

Melon

 

[STING2]

Melon,

The economy has only been stagnant for two years now. It may take a few more years for it to be completely turned around, that simply an economic fact regardless of the actions anyone takes. The tax cuts and rate cuts will eventually work but they need years NOT months to take effect. Economic history has shown this to be the case.

Bush senior was pre-occupied with Iraq and the Middle East because the situation there had, and if not handle in a proper way and resolved, a disasterous effect on the USA domestically. Most economist feel the crises in the Gulf was responsible for the mild recession we experienced in 1990/1991. If the situation there had not been resolved and resolved successfully, things would have been worse domestically. We don't live in a box or a castle with a moat around it. We are deeply effected domestically by many international events. In addition, Bush's role in helping end the Cold War(as President and Vice-President under Reagan) which allowed for a huge decrease in defense spending, did far more to help the economy and balance the budget in the long run than anything Clinton or the Republican congress after him did.

You seem to define US national security only in terms of the US national border. I define it as anywhere on the Planet that Americans have a heavy amount of engagement in from either investing, trading, or living in, with that area or region. Certainly all of Europe and all of our major trading partners outside of Europe would be included in that term. Most of the Middle East and Persian Gulf would as well. So would parts of Asia and the Pacific.

Bush does not have a one trackmind and he and his economic team are working hard to revive the economy. The Democrats currently on the other hand don't seem to be leading or have a consensus or agenda on anything. If the Democrats have a silver bullet for the economy, what is it?

 

[hiphop]

You seem to define US national security only in terms of the US national border. I define it as anywhere on the Planet that Americans have a heavy amount of engagement in from either investing, trading, or living in, with that area or region. Certainly all of Europe and all of our major trading partners outside of Europe would be included in that term. Most of the Middle East and Persian Gulf would as well. So would parts of Asia and the Pacific.

Excuse me, STING2, but imo that?s wrong. You seem to support a very broad definition of US national security. What you say may be true if you define US international security interest, but not the national security interest. If this was all NATIONAL security interest, the US wouldn?t have borders, and Europe or the Middle East or Asia or the Pacific region (Latin America too) would be an integral part of the States, and therefore wouldn?t have any national interest of their own. With your opinion you imply that as long as its American dollars invested, Americans have the right to fight for their national security interest (because what is an interest for if you can?t push it through), and that money and property are the same thing.

If we talk about heavy engagement investing, trading,.... many countries on this planet have (about) the same interests.

It is very important to note that, legally, an investment in another country doesn?t give the US any right to imply that they legally have any national interest in this place. Countries tend to have their own national interest, and often are pressured from US or European economy or from the globalized financial market who will not invest in certain regions if very own economic interests are not supported. To describe that form of economic power - pressure as "national security interest" is unexact and unscientific - at the very least. Everybody knows that in our fast paced world "everything is connected with everything". Strange enough (...), that makes international situations and strategies more tricky instead of less.

Imagine if China would say "Trading agreements with the U.S. are part of our national security interest". No, its part of their import/ export relation or whatever, but it isn?t explicitly nationally Chinese, if its investments on U.S. territory. A Chinese player will have to play by U.S. laws in America, even if he claims to have national security interests.

 

[STING2]

HIHOP,

What you do not see is a world of Multi-National Corporations and small business and people who are not concerned about national borders. Economic security is national security. You want to seperate National security from international security, but you can't, they are both the same thing!

In reality, the USA really does not have borders when it comes to business and economics. These are vital to our country but our also vital to other countries. We live in an interdependent world. The days when you could cut yourself off from the rest of the world and define countries security in strict terms of the national border have been gone for over 100 years. This is big part of the reason for US involvment in World War I, World War II, The Cold War, Korean War, Vietnam War, Lebanon, Grenada, Libya, Panama, Persian Gulf War, Hatie, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, the continueing war on terrorism, and any possible US military action against Iraq currently.

The USA does not have hundreds of thousands of troops stationed overseas to simply protect US borders here. Ask any soldier along the DMZ between North and South Korea and they will tell you they defend South Korea as if it were California or Utah. Same with any country that is part of the NATO alliance.

Also what is our interest is also often the interest of other nations. In addition, just because my sister lives and works in Dublin for a British company doing business with Irish Clients does not mean she is no longer an American. She is one of hundreds of thousands of Americans who live and work abroad for either American companies or foreign companies. Honestly, national borders do not have the same meaning they did 100 years ago. Just ask any European of any country that is apart of the European Union.

Trading agreements with the United States are apart of the National Security Interest of China. It is vital that the Chinese economy get access to more markets and involved in more international trade to increase the average level of income and standard of living among its people. Anything that effects the standard of living of your people, whether it be inside the country or outside the country is apart of your national security interest!

National interest is not necessarily defined by commericial law or the laws that exist within another countries borders. Its about whats best in all area's for the well being of your people inside the country and abroad. People in the USA are effected by what happens in other countries and that is why the safety security and economic well being of many of these countries is a part of US national security interest. National security does not mean domestic security. It is not narrowly defined like that.

 

[hiphop]

So then - how do you define national security?

What is the difference to domestic security?

What is the difference between security and a need? You can?t argue a need for more profits as if it was a security matter.

Sure, in an extreme case it may come to that (if there?s no gas for tanks or F-16s, you risk national security) BUT homeland security (defense matter) is not the same like economic security!

And security is not the same like importance! I am heavily against using words for brainwashing. And don?t you see the dangers that arise when you define EVERY interest the US has as being vital to nat. sec.?

Sure things are connected in a way or another, and effect each other, but Sting2, you have to admit that if your definition of nat. sec. is right, just about everything that happens in the world might be defined as being crucial to national sec.! Like, if I go to McDonalds today or not, is a quest of nat. sec. because if I don?t, it might harm economy, people might loose their job because of dirty corporate politics (oh sorry it was my fault, because I didn?t consume enough, hehe), without job they get angry, do a revolution and kill the president. And all that because I didn?t buy the burger! You see, everything is connected.

I absolutely am aware of the world of MultiNat Corps who are not concerned about nat. borders. Exactly, this is one of the things we should change. It won?t be changed that easily, but please, am I allowed to have my own thoughts about how this world SHOULD be and how we COULD change it, and do I have the right to not give a damn about licking globalisations ass, because I think its BAD, you know, BAD, yeah, not every fucking piece of economic freedom benefits EVERYONE, it just benefits very very few persons

(...no, a job is not a great thing I am offered because Corps are sooo nice and keep economy healthy, thank you , its a human right to work, not a creation of Corps that want to make the world a better place - I am talking about real profits, Silver and Gold, you know - - )

and, now, that is unjust, and you, Sting2, know that, just like me.

Xcuse the emotional rant when there?s no excuse in this western cruel society. I live in the EC. I am happy that we are taking over all the biz of the former east. I am happy our banks earn billions with interests for credits, ah you know, its just as beautiful as after the second world war! People believed West=Paradise. Until they realised that they are second class citizens in the EC, that they can be unemployed, or die of hunger, just like before. Anyway, we had a good cut, you know, they all needed TVs and real clothes... those poor apes.

Some people in my country make a lot of moola w buying and selling and dealing properties and "working power" aka human beings, and I am sooo happy, because you know, thats all MY PERSONAL national security interest.

PS: I left out the point you made about forseeing that the world was so interdependent, I am sure the US didn?t have any interest from WWI ?til today in suppressing other people, countries, governments so power could stay centralized in our oh-so-interdependent world.

Tell me, if its all built up on equal interdependence, and the suppression I am talking about doesn?t exist, why doesn?t every country have a WTC, Wall Street, Dow Jones, the priviledge to store mass destruction weaponry, the priviledge to support huge research and development programs (other nations are just too poor, but why should they ever get out of that trap, ha!)..., the priviledge to take over countries, to install and deinstall dictatorships (Pinochet), - - you will, just like me, come to the conclusion that some are more dependant than others in this mixed up world of interdependance, where everyone - except for a few - wonders how all those strange things are really connected (and gets the impression our "experts" will take care of that, so no need to act and change sth. for better).

Peace.

 

[STING2]

National security is anything that has a serious effect on our country whether it be from within are borders or outside our borders.

Domestic security is defined as security within US national borders and this distinction is often used when questions of whether federal troops, meaning the US military can participate in operations. Domestic security is primarily the job of police and FBI and US military are prohibited normally from participating in such things.

Profit can be defined as a security matter. The more a company or business profits, the more money is available for expansion and the employment of more workers. In addition, the more a business profits, the more money goes to the federal government to in the form of taxes to pay of debt, support education, build roads, pay the military, and other important things for a country. This is important and the invasion of another country that is an important trading partner of the USA would have a major impact on the United States economically which effects everything. The difference between security and need? Security is something that everyone needs.

Homeland security is domestic security and an aspect of National security. National Security involves both domestic and international security.

National security involves the threat and use of violent force or foreign military force used in a way that somehow adversely effects the the country in some way. This could involve invading a trading partner or several trading partners or countries that we have a strong relationship with to directly attacking the within its national borders.

Not going to Mcdonalds might hurt Mcdonalds, but the fact is you have to eat and your going to buy something else and someone else is going to profit unless of course you grow all your own food. There is a massive difference between citizens of one country restricting their purchases of goods and services and the military of another country invading and stealing a countries goods and services whether they be foreign or domestic with in that country. Both effect the country economically, but a military invasion could involve an immediate cut off business, where as consumers restricting their spending does not have as drastic an effect. If oil from the middle east were somehow completely cut off, there would be a massive jump in the world price of oil that would endanger the economic health of the world, which would endanger everyone's jobs which are their means to support themselves. But if consumers simply restrict their spending, such an effect would not happen and is caused by individuals within a country acting freely, and not coercion by a foreign military power.
Its in the national interest of a country for its citizens to spend, it becomes a national security issue though, when a foreign military or domestic group engages in violent action which among other things hurts the economic well being of this country and other countries.

Your entitled to your views but I strongly support Globalization. My sister is apart of it. An American, working for a British Company, in Dublin Ireland. U2 is apart of Globalization and could be considered one of the largest Multi-National corperations in the world. Few business whether small are large see profits like they do. Of course they are not in the big leages. Economic research has shown that free trade and capitalism properly regulated, are the way to achieve prosperity.

I think you have failed to understand somethings that I have said. I never said the USA necessarily saw at the begining of World War I that the world was becoming interdependent. It went to war in Europe because of its national and economic ties with the Allied countries in World War I. An interdependent world is a very decentralized world. Power is not nearly as centralized as it was 100 years ago. Globalization is partly responsible for this.

The world is not completely interdependent but becomes more interdependent everyday. Yes, there is extreme poverty in many parts of the world and the way to wipe out this poverty is to allow free trade and globalization to continue. It may take decades or over a century, but it will lead to a more prosperous world for everyone. Countries like South Korea that were a poor primarily farm country in 1950 are now Economically strong and growing. There are dozens of countries around the world that have greatly improved their standards of living over 50 years or 100 years ago.

 

[theSoulfulMofo]

National security is anything that has a serious effect on our country whether it be from within are borders or outside our borders.

*snip*

Hey STING2,

Could you recommend any books for me to read about globalization? ... I just started reading Hardt and Negri's Empire, ... and some of the stuff you said reflected what they were saying... I am very interested in reading some stuff about this and what books you would recommend.

thanks,
soulfo

 

[STING2]

Soul,

Most of what I have learned comes from some of my studies at University and the Economist magazine and Bi-monthly plublication Foreign Affairs. I could tell you my University text books, most may be out of print and are on a broad range of subjects involving International Relations. I do not have a or have read a book that dealt only with Globalization. Would like to though since its a very interesting topic. The Foreign Affairs Journal I get, often has advertisement for very good books some of which deal with Globalization. I'll look through there and dig up some books that I think might be good.

 

[Under Current]

If I was American I would vote for Security because from what I have read there are some serious security concerns still happenning in the U.S. The biggest concern imo would be U.S. shipping ports. There are millions of containers that enter the U.S. every year and right now there is no way to have enough of them searched to say that the ports are safe. If terrorists choose to put some sort of nuclear device remote controll detonated in a container that enters Manhatten then you can imagine not only the direct effect of the blast but the panicking that would occur with people trying to get out of NY.

Another thing i read about that freaked me out is that most airports a person can buy a ticket and check in his baggage and not even board the plane. They say it will be years before that is completely changed. Also x-ray machines in airports that will have the ability to scan all baggage is years away.

The more i read about how the U.S has changed security wise after 9-11 i became very surprised that not much at all has changed. In fact the so called Home Land Security Branch has not even been passed in the House thanks to the bickering between Democrats vs. the Republicans, imagine how fast it would be passed if there had been another attack in the last year. The CIA openly said a month ago that the U.S is just as vulnerable to an attack as right before 9-11.

Americans' should focus as much on their INTERNAL security as possible, President Bush should focus more on INTERNAL security rather than all of his attention on other countries.

Before America goes into other countries like Iraq, security should be vamped to the teeth because many people believe that Al Queda is waiting for America to attack Iraq then they will attack America in some way. Think about it, they haven't attacked on U.S. soil in over a year so their obviously planning something big, it's just a matter of where, when and how.

And am I the only one who feels that Iraq is going to reject weapons inspectors.

 

[Klaus]

One can't exist without the other.
If someone kills your cizizens there is no use of a booming economy. If the economy gets weak security is in danger because people without perspective tend to become radical.
Also the Government must have enough Income to fund the military.
So from my perspective it's important not to focus on one thing too much- politics is more complex then it looks like - maybe even too complicated for some ppl. who are part of the government.

Klaus

 

[hiphop]

Your entitled to your views but I strongly support Globalization. My sister is apart of it. An American, working for a British Company, in Dublin Ireland. U2 is apart of Globalization and could be considered one of the largest Multi-National corperations in the world. Few business whether small are large see profits like they do. Of course they are not in the big leages. Economic research has shown that free trade and capitalism properly regulated, are the way to achieve prosperity.

I think you have failed to understand somethings that I have said. I never said the USA necessarily saw at the begining of World War I that the world was becoming interdependent. It went to war in Europe because of its national and economic ties with the Allied countries in World War I. An interdependent world is a very decentralized world. Power is not nearly as centralized as it was 100 years ago. Globalization is partly responsible for this.

The world is not completely interdependent but becomes more interdependent everyday. Yes, there is extreme poverty in many parts of the world and the way to wipe out this poverty is to allow free trade and globalization to continue. It may take decades or over a century, but it will lead to a more prosperous world for everyone. Countries like South Korea that were a poor primarily farm country in 1950 are now Economically strong and growing. There are dozens of countries around the world that have greatly improved their standards of living over 50 years or 100 years ago.

I have replied in another thread, called development policies. Tell me what you think.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

I have replied in another thread

why?