Pages: 1

 

2007-06-21 09:51:24
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,993|7077|949

http://ips-dc.org/reports/070608-justsecurity.pdf

"Current U.S. foreign policy is unjust and breeds insecurity for all. In seeking an alternative, we should not revive the failed policies of the past. Instead, we should chart a new relationship between the United States and the world."

How many here agree with this statement?

  • A reduction of $213 billion in U.S. military spending, or one-third of the total "defense" budget.
  • Dramatic cuts in U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals as a first step toward nuclear disarmament.
  • An international process under the auspices of the UN to secure a viable peace between Israel and Palestine.
  • A global carbon fee to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and generate funds to help countries transition to sustainable sources of energy.
  • A large-scale, global plan to train four million new health workers.


Are those realistic goals, or just implausible pipe dreams?

I believe that American Foreign Policy is incredibly expedient and detrimental to the overall security of our country.  Historically, our foreign policy has been the same; Find quick solutions to current problems without looking at long term effects.  Clearly this needs to change.  Does anyone here actually think that our Government (and the people who support it) is capable of making major foreign policy shifts in the next 5-10 years?  If so, do you think the American public will do more to foster the change (through protest/elections/speaking out) or will it come as an internal policy shift?

Discuss (and digress)

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-06-21 09:52:00)

2007-06-21 09:53:17
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7207

"A reduction of $213 billion in U.S. military spending, or one-third of the total "defense" budget. "

Or....get rid of all the earmarks in Congress.  We tried this reduction in the 90's.  Not sure it worked that great then.
2007-06-21 09:54:25
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6839|The Gem Saloon
next they are going to make the CIA impotent again and slash all our HUMINT programs.....
2007-06-21 10:04:34
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,993|7077|949

Parker wrote:

next they are going to make the CIA impotent again and slash all our HUMINT programs.....
See, I would advocate scrapping ridiculous programs like the MOAB, and channeling MORE money into intelligence gathering programs.  Read any analysis by CIA/DIA/NSA analysts, and they will agree that the most efficient way to fight terrorism is through intelligence.  That is kind of the idea of this article.  It is futile to attempt to bomb/kill all the terrorists.  If we can instead infiltrate their networks, suffocate the money supply, and stop attacks proactively, it will do more to "Win" the "War on Terror" than dropping bombs on Taliban hideouts in Tora Bora and drawing up plans to invade Iran.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-06-21 10:05:03)

2007-06-21 10:26:24
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7026|SE London

To achieve "Just Security", the following should be implemented (according to the authors)
# A reduction of $213 billion in U.S. military spending, or one-third of the total "defense" budget.
# Dramatic cuts in U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals as a first step toward nuclear disarmament.
# An international process under the auspices of the UN to secure a viable peace between Israel and Palestine.
# A global carbon fee to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and generate funds to help countries transition to sustainable sources of energy.
# A large-scale, global plan to train four million new health workers.
I'm against total nuclear disarmament. I don't think it would lead to a safer world. I'm all for huge reductions in stockpiles though.
Other than that it all sounds good. I reckon the idea of a carbon tax is a great idea. It should be at the same rate in all countries. If you buy something that will release carbon dioxide, then you should have to pay tax on it. The amount of tax should depend on the amount of CO[sub]2[//sub] it'll release.

Parker wrote:

next they are going to make the CIA impotent again and slash all our HUMINT programs.....
You don't want to do that. Keep intelligence funding the same or increase it. Cut army, navy and airforce funding massively.

If the US cut back to spending just a bit more than the EU spend on defence, then that saving would cover the interest you pay on your national debt, then if you manage to get a budget surplus on top of that (like Clinton did), then national debt will actually fall. The current approach (not paying it off, since this could lead to recession, but focusing on expanding GDP so the debt represents a smaller proportion of it) to national debt is clearly not working - it has worked in the past, but is not working now.

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard