|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events Point-Counterpoint Republicans in disarray|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Experienced Member |
Well I never really blamed Clinton for terrorism. I think he and his government were as interested in curtailing terror as is the Bush administration. (Aka they don't want it curtailed as it is a useful diversion from their own issues) The argument was rather more one of links between parties and the military and defense in general. As for trillions. Lets not exaggerate. We will have spent trillions sometime in the future according to the GAO report if you include all the interest payments. We have not yet spent trillions. Besides you make that sound like a huge number. We spend over $1 trillion every year on hand out programs in this country. And the war has been on going for what nearly 7 years?
I don't disagree. I don't necessarily disagree with the concept behind Clinton's approach. But I will agree that at some point general war had to occur. 9-11 is as good a time as any. But that does not negate the need to continue with Clinton's approach. It is still a useful tool assuming we can get beyond legal barriers and burracracy. But post 9-11 there was no chance there weren't going to be boots on the ground on foriegn soil. And could have should have is all good and all but Clinton wouldn't have done it much different if at all. Remember Kosovo? Bottom line we're in it. We should win. And hind sight is always 20/20. Where are the visionaries? Certainly not running for president. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
I wouldn't go so far as to lay it off entirely on Reno ... the prevailing interpretation of FISA helped, buttressed by Justice Department guidance (memos). http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4721976/ If you read Reno's testimony to the 9/11 Commission, she was on top of it like white on rice ... quite a disparity of views ... and testimony. |
|||
|
|
Everybody hates me, Nobody loves me...  |
Actually, nobody but an incumbent running for a second term has EVER had Presidential experience. |
|||
|
| <dmuhler>
|
Absolutely correct. |
||
|
Where are the Carriers? |
-----THIS IS DISRUPTIV---
DMuHler sux "Thank you, for your support." - Bartles & Jaymes |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
One trillion is alot to you and me. But over 7 years its chump change for congress. Not even 10% of the budget over the same period of time. What winning should look like? Well Iraq should be stable. Afghanistan should be stable. Taliban should represent the minority if any part of the Afghan landscape. Al Quida in Pakistan should be rare as opposed to common. And Pak/Afghan/Iraq should not be safe havens for Al Quida. And thats just a beginning. |
|||
|
| <dmuhler>
|
10% of what took 200 plus years to accumulate? OK chump change. As for what your vision looks like, not so sure that is going to end terrorism. Close those fronts and they will open in SA, North Africa, and many other areas. Problem is we have not dealt with the problem. Fact is on the most simplest of terms, we don't even know what the problem is. |
||
|
| <dmuhler>
|
Oh and contrary to popular belief, democracy in the region is not the answer IMHO.
|
||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Well to use a comparison lets take a look at what the Fed spent on Medicaid in the same period: $1.876 trillion. And note that this is only the Fed portion and does not include the state allotments. The Fed spent $3.808 trillion on Social Security in those same 7 years. So yes $1 trillion over 7 years is chump change to our congress.
Maybe so. Probably so. But they wouldn't be operating from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, AND North Africa, SA, and many other areas like they are today. Just because its a big issue doesn't mean its worth our while to simply do nothing. Is that what your proposing? That the challenge is just too big and thus we should do nothing? |
|||
|
|
"I'm still a tough old bird!" |
He does have experience pushing drugs and in shady dealings in his district. |
|||
|
Member |
Thanks...believe it or not this wasn't intended as a total Clinton bash...the quarrel I have here is the complete willingness of so many to return to the failed Clinton policy of "Let's just ignore terrorism (or we'll indict a few of them just to scare them), maybe it will go away." I do not believe Hillary has learned a thing from 9/11.[/QUOTE] Amen to that. I wonder about those who demand our Country be protected from terrorism and the devils who literally want us all dead...preferably at the end of a dull blade...and then question or criticize the method of that protection and those protecting us. Just can't win with some folks. Sorry off topic. Couldn't help myself.  Carry on...  |
|||
|
|
Member |
COMMENT: The key to success is enacting protective, proactive, and defensive measures with the tacit understanding and acceptance of Americans. Abusive and extralegal intrusive use of surveillance, wiretaps, etc. are infringements on our civil liberties and can ultimately imperil the very liberties intended to be protected. There have been sufficient precedents of abuse to be concerned now with the extraordinary powers granted by the Patriot Act. Continued, effective vigilance certainly is needed against foreign threats to the U.S. as it is also needed against unchecked domestic abuse of those surveillance tools. |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
You're lucky, it could have been peanut butter and jam! :>  |
|||
|
Experianced Member |
Hey I perfer bagels, but we've been hearing this shite since the Reagan days .... It aint over til the fat lady sings  |
|||
|
|
Member |
Good point. Where do we draw the line? I am overly protective of my civil liberties as much as the next citizen. How then...do we defend ourselves effectively against an enemy who holds no value whatsoever for his or my life...hides in the shadows and slinks out under cover of darkness...so to speak...and takes some measure of pride in using and/or killing children in thier quest for " justice" against we infidels? Please enlighten me as to an effective offense and I will galdly support it. Otherwise...I will grudgingly allow a few of my pre -911 liberties to be placed on a shelf for a time...perhaps for good...so that my children and grandchildren may be innocently unaware of a plot to kill them and all with them ...while enjoying a happy and carefree day at school...because someone somewhere listened to a phone call that intercepted this plot. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Yes, an "iron fist" just like Hitler? Then rebellion WILL occur for sure. But don't worry, Bush with his bag of Presidential directives and "signing documents" has made whoever steps into the Oval Office quite capable of declaring martial law and setting aside the constitution on a presidential whim. So we might not have to worry our little heads about a following election and what it might bring (assuming that GWB steps down like he is supposed to) All he needs is a good excuse to invoke it, even if it is a "false flag" incident if that is his intention. (Or say attacking Iran with a nukelar weapon and getting a retalitary incident in the CONUS?) These "self appointed powers" have YET to be challenged in the Supreme Court, but he has managed to get 2 ideologically supportive justices in it and might just be able to pull off such a thing. |
|||
|
|
Member |
COMMENT: Patriot, neither you nor I are in the "business" of creating an effective protective policy, but as citizens, we're completely entitled to comment on it, express our misgivings, and "call out" any abuses on our Constitutionally-derived protections that are endangered through the misdirection of some overzealous bureaucrats. We elected and appointed government officials to construct the proper protections. If they do their job appropriately, then we'll recognize it. If they imperil our liberties and abuse our rights through excess, then we will certainly call that into accountability as well. I recognize the difficulty of protecting us all against a relentless enemy, but giving up protected civil liberties is taking the "shotcut" to losing them. There is compromise involved in protections, and we are already accepting them -- heightened surveillance in public areas; increased travel protections with an expanded air marshal program; increased, more detailed questioning at the borders, etc -- we've "digested" those. Increased and inappropriate government requests for private financial data of more Americans; indiscriminate and occasionally "heavy handed" requests of millions of phone records to communications carriers; an exponential increase in unwarranted wiretaps; a lack of cooperative policy and enforcement between ATF and the FBI wasting resources over a "turf battle," et al -- these are abuses and threats to our civil liberties. This message has been edited. Last edited by: NOVAMarine, |
|||
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Patriotgal, This is coming from someone whose direct military experience was in the field of communications intel/electronic eavesdropping: Prior to the enactment of the Patriot Act, our intelligence agencies (CIA, NSA, and DIA) were more than able to conduct needed eavesdropping on anybody necessary....the much maligned FISA allowed intel agencies to eavesdrop on CITIZENS for up to 3 days without a warrant, and any intel gathered during those 3 days was admissible when applying for said warrant. Foriegn nationals, and calls going to or coming from overseas were fair game WITHOUT oversight from FISA. |
|||
|
| <dmuhler>
|
Nope never said nothing was the solution, but I can tell you walking with a John Wayne swaggard, and spending chump change ain't going to get the job done. |
||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Well no offense but WWI, WWII, Civil War, Spanish American War all suggest otherwise. It wasn't until we had wide spread dissent amongst the population (typically politically motivated) that we started losing. So unless you'd like to outline your alternative, I'll stick with a historically proven technique. |
|||
|
