Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Section Eight

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 21
41
Politics and Law-Related News / Re: Who would you vote for?
« on: August 16, 2004, 06:14:22 PM »
hmmm... i can't figure out 13 conservatives on this board.  5-8 maybe.  This is really interesting.  Must be some people hiding in the closet.

Honestly, I didn't think there was even five on this board.

42
It's funny, I have a picture from when I was a child with the exact same haircut and I think the exact same background.

Are we like the bizarro version of each other or something?

I kinda hope not, that would mean I am going to score low on my LSAT.   :'(

43
Left wing dupe!  (sorry Jj, I had to!)  ;D

44
It's funny, I have a picture from when I was a child with the exact same haircut and I think the exact same background.

45
Hey man congratulations on your wedding!  No matter what anybody says it is an absolutely wonderful occasion!

46
Whoah, I have responded emotionally with accusations?  Sorry if it appears that way to you; I assure you that was not my intentions.  In fact, I wasn't even very emotional about the subject (atleast on this side of the keyboard, heh).

Sorry you left the debate; I meant everything I have said, whether I was truly getting carried away or not.

47
I stand by my claim that you are merely interpreting our current defense policy in a mannerism to reflect your disgust with the government, even through your claim that I am making a juvenile assertion.  The fact is you are not stating what the true current defense policy is; you are instead giving your definition of our policy.  I can ensure you that our current policy does not reflect controlling other countries.

Our position in this world is already set – we are the group everyone turns to for help, yet nobody wants around.  If we have the means to ensure that a possibly dangerous regime never gains the ability to attack us or our allies shouldn’t we act proactively against them?  Or should we wait until they have attacked our country or an ally?  Please Jj provide a suggestion in how our military could possibly protect our nation in a greater manner.

Yes, our current strategy has been a success.  I know the WTC has been attacked before; however, the previous attack in 93 only killed 200 some people, not quite in the same league as some of the major attacks in comparison (no offense to those dead and their families, of course any death is extremely bad).  And you are dead wrong in your claim; I am saying 3000 dead is a success.  I am saying ONLY 3000 dead in a period of time where BILLIONS of people have traversed this countryside is a great success.  I hate that the people died just as much as you do; however, I don’t immediately condemn a system that has proven to be a highly successful system.

It does matter whether it was a terror attack or a military attack.  Your claims that the current DOD policy is a failure would suggest that the military is the reason a terrorist action occurred.  There has been no military action against us; which is what our military policy is trying to prevent.  The intelligence agencies and local law enforcement agencies (which neither report to the DOD) specialize in terror acts not the military.

I stated my question in my last post with full knowledge of how you would answer.  I will state it again for clarification - Can you name another 50 year period in the history of our country where there was not major battles fought on our soil?  In your period of strong isolationism we had the most horrendous battles ever fought on American soil.  We had the most damaging battles to terrain, people, and our liberty.  I know you don’t need me to remind you of what it was; however, I assure you it certainly falls within the boundaries of my question listed above.  If someone else doesn’t want a piece of the big bad Americans it seems they have to attack themselves.

The primary mission of DOD is to defend the United States from military actions which all those billions spent have certainly lead to results, only since 9/11 has DOD taken a greater role in the protection of our nation from acts of terror.  There has been billions of dollars invested into making our terror defense system strong; however, there is no overnight fix to the deficiencies other agencies left for us.  There have been no attacks within our borders since 9/11 and there may not be for a long time, yet there is always a chance that it can happen – no matter what system you try to put in place. 


Saying that this is not our policy and only my interpretation is not adding to the discussion.  It's like saying on the playground, "Oh, yeah? Says who?"

I am saying that we should lessen our focus on trying to control other countries through military force and concentrate on defending ourselves.

You've suggested that the strategy is a success because we have had just that one attack in 50 years on our soil. 

1) it is not the only attack.  that was not the first time the WTC was attacked.

2) are you suggesting that 3000+ dead is a success.  I'm sure you're not.

3) you said it was a terror attack, not a military attack.  My point on that is taht it doesn't matter whether it was an attack by military forces or terror forces.  It was an attack against our nation.

4) And yes, I can give you another 50 year period where there was no such attack.  I can give you a 127 year period.  From 1814 to 1941 there were no attacks on US soil by foreign forces.  And that was a time of strong isolationism.  So I don't think you need to go there.  I'm sure you'd tell me that the world wasn't so closely connected then and that was why we weren't attacked, but you asked the question so here's the answer.

My bigger point is that we spent and spend billions every year on 'defense' and almost if not all of it was useless in defending us against this attack.

And the first mission of DOD is to defend us.


But you see that isn't our current policy; it is merely your interpretation of our policy.  I think we need to have a very serious focus on global security and not simply issues within our borders.  From what I am getting from you, correct me if I am wrong – you believe we should lessen our focus on global concerns and instead only focus on internal concerns.  I do agree we need to refocus and ensure we prevent any future attacks that we may be able to; however, I don’t think we need any radical changes in policy.  I think Homeland defense is a major effort in trying to refocus on national security.

We have had one single attack within our soil in over 50 years (and it was by a terrorist action – not a military action) and you believe we are failures in our efforts for security.  Can you name another 50 year period in the history of our country where there was not major battles fought on our soil?  Heck other than a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor our country even made it through both WW’s without any major battles on our homeland.



48
But you see that isn't our current policy; it is merely your interpretation of our policy.  I think we need to have a very serious focus on global security and not simply issues within our borders.  From what I am getting from you, correct me if I am wrong – you believe we should lessen our focus on global concerns and instead only focus on internal concerns.  I do agree we need to refocus and ensure we prevent any future attacks that we may be able to; however, I don’t think we need any radical changes in policy.  I think Homeland defense is a major effort in trying to refocus on national security.

We have had one single attack within our soil in over 50 years (and it was by a terrorist action – not a military action) and you believe we are failures in our efforts for security.  Can you name another 50 year period in the history of our country where there was not major battles fought on our soil?  Heck other than a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor our country even made it through both WW’s without any major battles on our homeland.


I'll try to make you comfortable.

I think we need to review the strategy of defending America outside America and the idea that our best defense is to manage the affairs of other countries.

I don't know what would have worked, but I know what we had did not work and is therefore open to question.

I don't think marshal law is the only answer.  You're looking at the symptoms without considering the disease.  We need to look at a systemic and long term analysis.  That means looking beyond preventing a specific act and look wider and harder.

I think your statement that there is only one way we could have prevented the attack is reflective of the current establishment thinking.  When you think there is only one way to do something, you need to find new ways to look at things.

Well I do agree with you, but where does the restructuring occur?  Is it the military and it's mission that needs to be reworked or is it the intelligence agencies, the state polices, the local law enforcement agencies, the freedoms alloted to people, the immigration policies,or the entire government?  I don't feel comfortable asking this question because I fear I will get some pretty extreme answers, but oh well!

I think we still have to be very careful with major changes.

49
Considering what that country has gone through over the last century, I see it as to be expected.  I believe that it will take a long rough period of time to convert that nation over to a fully democratic society.  You have to remember that other than us and England, nobody wants to help them at all.

50
Do you not want to be told?  In my opinion, too much info is better than too little.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 21