Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Columbia vs. NYU  (Read 3738 times)

argo

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
Re: Columbia vs. NYU
« Reply #20 on: July 02, 2008, 12:38:05 AM »
Oh man. Right, wrong, yeah. We've been funding Musharraf who has been undemocratic AND a bad leader. He declared a truce with the radicals in the mountains that allowed them to regroup stronger than ever. He's wishywashy and hasn't committed to anything. Why even try.
Also, the lack of knowledge all you 'patriots' have is disgusting. Do you realize that we just spent 400 million dollars (this just came out in the past week) on covert operations and 'destabilization' in Iran? They have REASON to believe we want war with them because we're funding their political dissidents and trying to negotiate hit jobs on their leaders. Nevermind whether they are a good government or  bad government, they are fairly legitimate and we can't really fight their crimes by trying to subvert them. When we toss out the values we purport to defend, we lose all weight in the fight. It no longer matters who wins.
Henry Kissinger and other similar  men are still remembered as practical war criminals in South America. Time and time again, in Guatemala, El Salvador, Argentina, Chile, socialist leaders have won democratic elections over the past decades. What do we do? Pump money (like in the Iran-Contra scandal, to the right-wing Contras of el salvador) into rightwing paramilitary groups and dictators, helping them defeat the democratically elected leftists, all in the name of fighting communism... and protecting swish business deals.
In Guatemala, the United Fruit Company was so tight with the government in the 50s that if a local could not pay taxes, he was subject to working 150 days a year not to the government, but to UFC. And UFC was closely tied to the US government.. indeed, a later head of the CIA was previously in charge of the UFC. Just one example of the collusion of power, money, and rightism. We forget, we FORGET the impression we have left in other countries, then we act shocked and appalled when we get illegal immigrants fleeing the economic destruction we have wreaked (we have so many el salvadorans and the MS-13 because they fled the 10 year civil war reagan's right wing funding set off).

And in Iran, we forget that in the 80s, we supported Iraq(yes, IRAQ) publicly while secretly selling Iran weapons and giving the proceeds to the El Salvadorans in the Iran-Contra scandal. The Iranians remember this, they remember our willingness to declare our support against their enemies while selling them weapons on the side, and they remember it all and don't forget- they cannot trust the United States, not even as a partner, let alone someone to come in and tell them how to run their country. Let alone the fact that Ahmenwhatever is actually a presidential figurehead, but not a real leader- the Ayatollah is in charge. They just use their president to poke at us and make us angry.

Iran is a place of political repression and violence and oppression of minorities, but America has lost any ability to dictate change in the region. We have no credibility.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of truth to what you're saying.  But, there are nuances, as always.  Not every democratically elected government is necessarily the best for its own people.  Frankly, the unenlightened, uneducated masses are not equipped to know what's best for themselves (that's why they elect the likes of George W. Bush).  Unfortunately, there is nobody above the US of A to install a "friendly" regime, like we can do in Nicaragua or even Colombia. 

My problem with your argument is that not every "legitimate" government necessarily has a moral right to govern.  A regime that hangs women for failing to wear head-scarves is morally corrupt.  As is a regime that sponsors illegal drug trade, like most of the leftist regimes in the Latin America do.  Let's not forget one thing - Social Democrats were ELECTED in Germany in 1932.  The Germans paid a heavy price for their "mistake", as they well should've. 

I, personally, don't think that we should fight Iran.  Iranians are not Arabs, they can be reasoned with and even trusted.  Most of them are sick and tired of the ayatollahs' rule.  If the American intelligence elite hadn't been decimated by the maniacal incompetence of this administration, we could make efforts to overthrow the Iranian regime through support of their resistance and similar measures.  However, your argument that they have a right to hate us because we intervene with their  business, doesn't not stand scrutiny.  If we don't intervene, who will? 

I grew up in the Soviet Union and even though I consider myself fairly liberal, I never forget that fighting for freedom is a noble cause.  Even if you need to exhibit some toughness which for some screwed up reason most associate with "red blooded" "patriotic" Americans.
--
"And that is what is so great about the Internet. It enables pompous blowhards to connect with other pompous blowhards in a vast circle-jerk of pomposity."

-Bill Maher

kenpostudent

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 296
    • MSN Messenger - kenpostudent@hotmail.com
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Columbia vs. NYU
« Reply #21 on: July 02, 2008, 01:15:33 AM »
Nevermind whether they are a good government or  bad government, they are fairly legitimate and we can't really fight their crimes by trying to subvert them. When we toss out the values we purport to defend, we lose all weight in the fight. It no longer matters who wins.

I wonder if you will still hold that view if an Iranian nuclear suitcase detonates in a US city. In my mind, it matters a great deal who wins. I don't doubt for a second that they would disseminate nuclear weapons to terrorist groups once they get their first operational bomb. That's the ultimate doomsday scenario. Not only could a terrorist group hold our country virtually hostage with just the threat of a nuclear attack, they could vaporize city after city, leaving us no one to retaliate against. We will be screwed. If you want to believe that Iran is a good regime that poses no threat to us, feel free to bury your head in the sand. When you decide to pull it out, it may glow in the dark.

Take comfort, though. The Israelis have balls even if we don't. They will blow them back to the stone age for us, and we'll back them in the aftermath. Much of the world hates Israel already, so what have they got to lose? Don't worry, you live in your Pollyannish paradise of idealism while someone else makes the hard choices for you.

Resident CLS Troll

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 651
    • View Profile
Re: Columbia vs. NYU
« Reply #22 on: July 02, 2008, 07:21:14 AM »
Don't worry, you live in your Pollyannish paradise of idealism while someone else makes the hard choices for you.

Again, I am curious as to what you've contributed to the American polity that makes you feel entitled to make judgments about others in the manner that you do.

------------------------------

To the OP: one of the major differences between CLS and NYU is that NYU is much more of a stand-alone entity while CLS is more integrated into its parent university.  The distinction just came to mind so I thought I would throw it out in case it was relevant to your decision.

Rhymnoceros: getting started a little early, are we?

fsohn

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 230
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Columbia vs. NYU
« Reply #23 on: July 02, 2008, 10:26:35 AM »
Oh man. Right, wrong, yeah. We've been funding Musharraf who has been undemocratic AND a bad leader. He declared a truce with the radicals in the mountains that allowed them to regroup stronger than ever. He's wishywashy and hasn't committed to anything. Why even try.
Also, the lack of knowledge all you 'patriots' have is disgusting. Do you realize that we just spent 400 million dollars (this just came out in the past week) on covert operations and 'destabilization' in Iran? They have REASON to believe we want war with them because we're funding their political dissidents and trying to negotiate hit jobs on their leaders. Nevermind whether they are a good government or  bad government, they are fairly legitimate and we can't really fight their crimes by trying to subvert them. When we toss out the values we purport to defend, we lose all weight in the fight. It no longer matters who wins.
Henry Kissinger and other similar  men are still remembered as practical war criminals in South America. Time and time again, in Guatemala, El Salvador, Argentina, Chile, socialist leaders have won democratic elections over the past decades. What do we do? Pump money (like in the Iran-Contra scandal, to the right-wing Contras of el salvador) into rightwing paramilitary groups and dictators, helping them defeat the democratically elected leftists, all in the name of fighting communism... and protecting swish business deals.
In Guatemala, the United Fruit Company was so tight with the government in the 50s that if a local could not pay taxes, he was subject to working 150 days a year not to the government, but to UFC. And UFC was closely tied to the US government.. indeed, a later head of the CIA was previously in charge of the UFC. Just one example of the collusion of power, money, and rightism. We forget, we FORGET the impression we have left in other countries, then we act shocked and appalled when we get illegal immigrants fleeing the economic destruction we have wreaked (we have so many el salvadorans and the MS-13 because they fled the 10 year civil war reagan's right wing funding set off).

And in Iran, we forget that in the 80s, we supported Iraq(yes, IRAQ) publicly while secretly selling Iran weapons and giving the proceeds to the El Salvadorans in the Iran-Contra scandal. The Iranians remember this, they remember our willingness to declare our support against their enemies while selling them weapons on the side, and they remember it all and don't forget- they cannot trust the United States, not even as a partner, let alone someone to come in and tell them how to run their country. Let alone the fact that Ahmenwhatever is actually a presidential figurehead, but not a real leader- the Ayatollah is in charge. They just use their president to poke at us and make us angry.

Iran is a place of political repression and violence and oppression of minorities, but America has lost any ability to dictate change in the region. We have no credibility.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of truth to what you're saying.  But, there are nuances, as always.  Not every democratically elected government is necessarily the best for its own people.  Frankly, the unenlightened, uneducated masses are not equipped to know what's best for themselves (that's why they elect the likes of George W. Bush).  Unfortunately, there is nobody above the US of A to install a "friendly" regime, like we can do in Nicaragua or even Colombia. 

My problem with your argument is that not every "legitimate" government necessarily has a moral right to govern.  A regime that hangs women for failing to wear head-scarves is morally corrupt.  As is a regime that sponsors illegal drug trade, like most of the leftist regimes in the Latin America do.  Let's not forget one thing - Social Democrats were ELECTED in Germany in 1932.  The Germans paid a heavy price for their "mistake", as they well should've. 

I, personally, don't think that we should fight Iran.  Iranians are not Arabs, they can be reasoned with and even trusted.  Most of them are sick and tired of the ayatollahs' rule.  If the American intelligence elite hadn't been decimated by the maniacal incompetence of this administration, we could make efforts to overthrow the Iranian regime through support of their resistance and similar measures.  However, your argument that they have a right to hate us because we intervene with their  business, doesn't not stand scrutiny.  If we don't intervene, who will? 

I grew up in the Soviet Union and even though I consider myself fairly liberal, I never forget that fighting for freedom is a noble cause.  Even if you need to exhibit some toughness which for some screwed up reason most associate with "red blooded" "patriotic" Americans.

The Social Deomcrats were not Nazis, and were in fact persecuted, along with many other leftist groups (they were actually pretty leftist in the earl 20th century) by the National Socialists, i.e. the Nazis.

kenpostudent

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 296
    • MSN Messenger - kenpostudent@hotmail.com
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Columbia vs. NYU
« Reply #24 on: July 02, 2008, 11:15:30 AM »
Nevermind whether they are a good government or  bad government, they are fairly legitimate and we can't really fight their crimes by trying to subvert them. When we toss out the values we purport to defend, we lose all weight in the fight. It no longer matters who wins.

HOWEVER, I feel that the negative effects America has had on other countries (i.e. remembering all those times we made the WRONG policy decision and supported a right-wing dictator fond of torture.. there are, oh, at least a dozen of those we propped up in south america? no illegal drug trade excuses that, and the drug trade wasnt the reason most of those happened. it was outright distrust of socialism. these were democratically elected and they werent on any worse path than the right was, we replaced 'bad' with WORSE, for sure) and the lack of understanding we have about how other countries view us have put us in a bad position to really think seriously about what we are doing. The arguments are rubbed over with talk of patriotism or lack of patriotism, as if all americans who question certain actions are unpatriotic.
So it is important for big, bad decisions to get made, and all of our society should be focused on it. But right now I feel appropriate with the things I choose to talk about and focus upon because there are already 99 voices calling for strong action, and I want to be a part of society that, even if we ultimately do decide to take action, recalls all of the big bad stuff about the real world, and the fact that we are NOT always right, and that the strongest and baddest-ass looking action isnt necessarily always the best one.
Also, I think you wildly overestimate how much other countries would want to subvert us- the leaders of Iran have little interest in planting us all over with nuclear weapons, because they know we could blow their entire country away at the same time. That's the tense stalemate that everybody having nuclear weapons causes.

America has done many things that I don't support or condone. Some seemed like good ideas at the time, others were blatant interference in the affairs of sovereign nations. Regardless, this is not a matter of international relations so much as it is of survival. Do you really believe that Iran wouldn't disseminate weapons to terrorist groups? That is the most naive view I have ever heard.

Mutually Assured Destructions worked with the Soviets and the Chinese because both new we could vaporize their countries. If Iran were to give Hezbollah and nuke under the radar, who can we retaliate against? MAD does not apply in this situation. I'm not convinced that an American president would execute a nuclear strike against a country without solid proof that they were connected with an attack on the United States or an ally. Israel, on the otherhand, would be certain to respond to an attack on their soil. I don't think we could stop them from nuking all of their enemies if they were attacked.

kenpostudent

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 296
    • MSN Messenger - kenpostudent@hotmail.com
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Columbia vs. NYU
« Reply #25 on: July 02, 2008, 11:23:51 AM »
Nevermind whether they are a good government or  bad government, they are fairly legitimate and we can't really fight their crimes by trying to subvert them. When we toss out the values we purport to defend, we lose all weight in the fight. It no longer matters who wins.

HOWEVER, I feel that the negative effects America has had on other countries (i.e. remembering all those times we made the WRONG policy decision and supported a right-wing dictator fond of torture.. there are, oh, at least a dozen of those we propped up in south america? no illegal drug trade excuses that, and the drug trade wasnt the reason most of those happened. it was outright distrust of socialism. these were democratically elected and they werent on any worse path than the right was, we replaced 'bad' with WORSE, for sure) and the lack of understanding we have about how other countries view us have put us in a bad position to really think seriously about what we are doing. The arguments are rubbed over with talk of patriotism or lack of patriotism, as if all americans who question certain actions are unpatriotic.
So it is important for big, bad decisions to get made, and all of our society should be focused on it. But right now I feel appropriate with the things I choose to talk about and focus upon because there are already 99 voices calling for strong action, and I want to be a part of society that, even if we ultimately do decide to take action, recalls all of the big bad stuff about the real world, and the fact that we are NOT always right, and that the strongest and baddest-ass looking action isnt necessarily always the best one.
Also, I think you wildly overestimate how much other countries would want to subvert us- the leaders of Iran have little interest in planting us all over with nuclear weapons, because they know we could blow their entire country away at the same time. That's the tense stalemate that everybody having nuclear weapons causes.

America has been involved in her fair share of Machivellian schemes when meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations. We have been wrong on more than one occasion. Maybe we have even engendered much of the hatred directed our way. However, this is a matter of survival. Do you really believe that Iran would not disseminate nukes to terrorists? If the did so under the radar, who would we retaliate against? How does Mutually Assurred Destruction apply in this case? I assert that it does not. Radical Islamofacsists have little stake in anything but their attempts at acquiring 72 virgins in the afterlife. I doubt they can be reasoned with. Iran is full of many moderates, but their government has been hijacked by the most radical of radicals. Now they pose a clear and present threat to us. The failure to acknowledge and respond to that threat is either a act of monumental cowardice or abject stupidity.

I understand your arguments. America has been on the wrong side of things in the past. We are not in this instance.

kenpostudent

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 296
    • MSN Messenger - kenpostudent@hotmail.com
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Columbia vs. NYU
« Reply #26 on: July 02, 2008, 11:27:39 AM »
Don't worry, you live in your Pollyannish paradise of idealism while someone else makes the hard choices for you.

Again, I am curious as to what you've contributed to the American polity that makes you feel entitled to make judgments about others in the manner that you do.

------------------------------

To the OP: one of the major differences between CLS and NYU is that NYU is much more of a stand-alone entity while CLS is more integrated into its parent university.  The distinction just came to mind so I thought I would throw it out in case it was relevant to your decision.

Rhymnoceros: getting started a little early, are we?

I reserve the right to tell you that your are an idiot if you publish a ridiculous view. However, I give you the same courtesy to similarly judge any view of mine that you think is foolish or unfounded.

As for my contribution to American policy, how is that relevant? I served in Bosnia. I was a low level enlisted man. I could influence no policies, only carry them out. I don't need to be a policy guru at a Washington think tank to recognize a threat when it is presented.

kenpostudent

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 296
    • MSN Messenger - kenpostudent@hotmail.com
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Columbia vs. NYU
« Reply #27 on: July 02, 2008, 01:00:50 PM »
Well, idealistic towards America, no. Idealistic in the the sense that Iran means us no harm, yes. If not idealisitic, certainly misguided.

I'm not trying to silence your voice. I still don't see how giving you your voice somehow translates into giving a thug like Ahemdinejad a forum to spout his venom.

Back to the original question... have you visited both schools? That may the be only way to differentiate between the two. I doubt job prospects would be worse for attending one or the other. Your debt load will be very similar (although, I think Columbia is slightly more expensive than NYU). I have been to both campuses, and they have very different personalities. I think your decision will come down to personal preference, as I doubt there is really a material difference between the two schools. If you have a specific practice area or interest, you might research the writings of the faculty of both schools to see if one is an expert in that particular area. You might be able to develop a mentor relationship that way.

argo

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
Re: Columbia vs. NYU
« Reply #28 on: July 02, 2008, 01:16:56 PM »

The Social Deomcrats were not Nazis, and were in fact persecuted, along with many other leftist groups (they were actually pretty leftist in the earl 20th century) by the National Socialists, i.e. the Nazis.

Thank you for the correction. 
--
"And that is what is so great about the Internet. It enables pompous blowhards to connect with other pompous blowhards in a vast circle-jerk of pomposity."

-Bill Maher

Resident CLS Troll

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 651
    • View Profile
Re: Columbia vs. NYU
« Reply #29 on: July 03, 2008, 07:13:43 AM »
I reserve the right to tell you that your are an idiot if you publish a ridiculous view. However, I give you the same courtesy to similarly judge any view of mine that you think is foolish or unfounded.

As for my contribution to American policy, how is that relevant? I served in Bosnia. I was a low level enlisted man. I could influence no policies, only carry them out. I don't need to be a policy guru at a Washington think tank to recognize a threat when it is presented.

Well then we end up in a world where people point fingers at each other and call each other idiots simply because they disagree.

And I didn't say policy, I said polity.  It's relevant only in terms of what kind of tone I decide to adopt.