posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 04:10 PM
These are all very good questions spoon. I guess the answers you will get will depend on which side of the fence people are going to come from. I
personally think that has building for years. There are those in the middle east who do not like the west and how we "meddle" in their affairs. They
have a different mindset. A different value on life. They want us out.
As to how it happened. I peronally belive the "official"story. I will admit that there are glaring holes, and sloppy/shoddy investigative work, but
on the whole, nothing out there has changed my views. Someone here had a good point. They stated that the dod was so intent on the outside threat,
that our defences were not set up for a attack from the inside.
There was probably plenty that could have been done to prevent it, starting with who we intially made our bed with. It just seems to cascade from
there. Missed opportunities. A "weakness", for the lack of a better term, to do what was needed, when it was needed.
I personally think that the war on terrorism is not good or bad, but necessary. As for the patriot act, there is ALOT that makes me very uncomfortable
about it As for torture, in the right circumstances, sure. If it saves alot of lives, then yes.
Strong executive branch. Well that would have to hand in hand in hand with the other two branches. One would have to be strong enough to give the
order knowing that people will die, sometimes innocent ones. The legislative has to be strong enough to know when actions like this need to be taken
and to back the executive branch. Judicial would have to be strong enough to speak up when the actions taken were wrong and laws were broken. The
benefit or detrement is in the eye of the beholder.
As for the security, it almost is how much are WE as a counrty willing to give up. If we are weak and afraid, then we give up alot. Probably alot more
than the framers of the Constitution intended. As for your last question, again it is in the eye of the beholder. Good thread