U2 Feedback

U2 Feedback (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/)
-   Free Your Mind Archive (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/f290/)
-   -   More Important-National Security (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/f290/more-important-national-security-67701.html)

diamond 11-07-2002 08:43 PM

More Important-National Security
 
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?:huh:

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

Out-
DB9

diamond 11-07-2002 08:56 PM

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

thank you
:angry:
DB9
:dance:

STING2 11-07-2002 09:24 PM

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 11-07-2002 09:41 PM

Are you speaking for the Iraqis or the Palestinians?

STING2 11-07-2002 10:04 PM

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 11-07-2002 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hi Bias
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 11-08-2002 12:15 AM

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 11-08-2002 12:47 AM

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

thank
u

DB9
:dance:

theSoulfulMofo 11-08-2002 12:55 AM

:hmm: Being poor...

or

:hmm: Being poor and paranoid.

;)

diamond 11-08-2002 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theSoulfulMofo
:hmm: Being poor...

or

:hmm: Being poor and paranoid.

;)

Soulfo-
Very well put..:up:
Simply stated:up:
DB9

BAW 11-08-2002 01:03 AM

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 11-08-2002 01:41 AM

Are they really mutually exclusive Diamond?

STING2 11-08-2002 01:59 AM

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 11-08-2002 06:56 AM

Quote:

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

nbcrusader 11-08-2002 11:31 AM

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 11-08-2002 11:49 AM

what baw said. i voted national security.

BVS 11-08-2002 11:58 AM

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 11-08-2002 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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.
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 11-08-2002 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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.
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 11-08-2002 04:36 PM

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?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com