A Question for the Left

[BigRob]

Often the argument is made that no terror attack, following 9/11, was made on US soil and the policies of George Bush are the reason for this event. This argument does not sit well with many on the left, as they claim there is no evidence that the policies of Bush had anything to do with this event. It is argued that the absence of a terror attack does not prove that the policy was successful.

So, here is the question.

Why do you believe in outdated policies such as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)? The only evidence that this theory was legitimate was the absence of a nuclear attack. If you argue that an absence of a terror attack on US soil does not signal a success in Bush's policies, how can you argue in favor of a policy such as MAD, when the only evidence to support it is the absence of a nuclear attack?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Often the argument is made that no terror attack, following 9/11, was made on US soil and the policies of George Bush are the reason for this event. This argument does not sit well with many on the left, as they claim there is no evidence that the policies of Bush had anything to do with this event. It is argued that the absence of a terror attack does not prove that the policy was successful.

So, here is the question.

Why do you believe in outdated policies such as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)? The only evidence that this theory was legitimate was the absence of a nuclear attack. If you argue that an absence of a terror attack on US soil does not signal a success in Bush's policies, how can you argue in favor of a policy such as MAD, when the only evidence to support it is the absence of a nuclear attack?

I don't think you have adequately supported your position that everyone on the left believes in MAD. I would also like to point out that while George has been in office no asteroids have destroyed an Amercan city, does this in some way prove that George prevented those asteroid strikes by his actions?

 

[Generalist]

I don't think you have adequately supported your position that everyone on the left believes in MAD. I would also like to point out that while George has been in office no asteroids have destroyed an Amercan city, does this in some way prove that George prevented those asteroid strikes by his actions?

That is a fantastic point! For then you can argue everything and anything is as it is due to the inactions of anyone on this earth! It is ridiculous then, surely, to suggest that a concept works because you do nothing about it, either to help or hinder it.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

That is a fantastic point! For then you can argue everything and anything is as it is due to the inactions of anyone on this earth! It is ridiculous then, surely, to suggest that a concept works because you do nothing about it, either to help or hinder it.

My point exactly! Thanks, General.

 

[BigRob]

This proves my position. MAD is not a legitimate theory because the only evidence to support it is the lack of a nuclear war. I am in no way arguing that the lack of a terror attack proves Bush's policies.

Therefore, it stands to reason that arms control agreements or theories like MAD are useless, and we need to heavily invest in new nuclear technologies and new missile defense programs in order to ensure the safety of America. The big supporters of nuclear cuts and arms control agreements are the Left.

I am simply saying we are relying on an unproven, outdated idea to shape our nuclear policy, and it is ridiculous. What is more ridiculous is that this is a position Obama supports. Cutting missile defense spending, and cutting nuclear arsenals is one of his stated goals.

Often, on this board in fact, left leaning posters argue that nuclear cuts should be a priority because we do not need so many bombs to ensure our safety. They argue that even if we each have 100 it maintains the idea of mutually assured destruction. These same posters then attack those on the right for crediting Bush with the fact that there has been no terror attack on US soil since 9/11. I find this position ridiculous, given that they place so much faith in an untested, unproven theory that follows the same logic.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

This proves my position. MAD is not a legitimate theory because the only evidence to support it is the lack of a nuclear war. I am in no way arguing that the lack of a terror attack proves Bush's policies.

Therefore, it stands to reason that arms control agreements or theories like MAD are useless, and we need to heavily invest in new nuclear technologies and new missile defense programs in order to ensure the safety of America. The big supporters of nuclear cuts and arms control agreements are the Left.

I am simply saying we are relying on an unproven, outdated idea to shape our nuclear policy, and it is ridiculous. What is more ridiculous is that this is a position Obama supports. Cutting missile defense spending, and cutting nuclear arsenals is one of his stated goals.

Often, on this board in fact, left leaning posters argue that nuclear cuts should be a priority because we do not need so many bombs to ensure our safety. They argue that even if we each have 100 it maintains the idea of mutually assured destruction. These same posters then attack those on the right for crediting Bush with the fact that there has been no terror attack on US soil since 9/11. I find this position ridiculous, given that they place so much faith in an untested, unproven theory that follows the same logic.

So what's your point? That continuing to build more and more weapons is the way to go? I don't see where you intend to go with this.

 

[BigRob]

So what's your point? That continuing to build more and more weapons is the way to go? I don't see where you intend to go with this.

That the logic is the same, and both notions are equally as flawed, yet one is held as gospel truth and the other is attacked for having no basis is reality.

But yes, I think we do need to make more and better weapons (we are behind in this already), and heavily invest in missile defense. We especially need to come up with a defense against an EMP attack.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Often the argument is made that no terror attack, following 9/11, was made on US soil and the policies of George Bush are the reason for this event. This argument does not sit well with many on the left, as they claim there is no evidence that the policies of Bush had anything to do with this event. It is argued that the absence of a terror attack does not prove that the policy was successful.

So, here is the question.

Why do you believe in outdated policies such as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)? The only evidence that this theory was legitimate was the absence of a nuclear attack. If you argue that an absence of a terror attack on US soil does not signal a success in Bush's policies, how can you argue in favor of a policy such as MAD, when the only evidence to support it is the absence of a nuclear attack?

Becuse the simple fact is that it was nearly 10 years since the last attack before sept 11, ( not counting the LAX attack that was stopped) . So the idea that somehow Bush's policy + no attack = cause and effect is inncorect unless you can show actuly that attack was stoped with a measure Bush put into effect. ( also note that not evry part of the Patriot act was bad, most disagree with parts of it, not the whole thing.)

There has also been no terror attack in the US since I got out of college. It must be linked!

and the real question is how can you make the claim that becuse of Bush there have been no attack in the US? All I am saying is that you cant support that claim. Could it be true? maybe, but it could also be true that had the patriot act never been signed we would be safe as well.

Its not the left yelling becuse of this, Y never happened, with no proof, its your side. Put up evidence that shows why the patriot act stoped attacks, rather then the simple fact none happened yet.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

This proves my position. MAD is not a legitimate theory because the only evidence to support it is the lack of a nuclear war. I am in no way arguing that the lack of a terror attack proves Bush's policies.

Therefore, it stands to reason that arms control agreements or theories like MAD are useless, and we need to heavily invest in new nuclear technologies and new missile defense programs in order to ensure the safety of America. The big supporters of nuclear cuts and arms control agreements are the Left.

I am simply saying we are relying on an unproven, outdated idea to shape our nuclear policy, and it is ridiculous. What is more ridiculous is that this is a position Obama supports. Cutting missile defense spending, and cutting nuclear arsenals is one of his stated goals.

Often, on this board in fact, left leaning posters argue that nuclear cuts should be a priority because we do not need so many bombs to ensure our safety. They argue that even if we each have 100 it maintains the idea of mutually assured destruction. These same posters then attack those on the right for crediting Bush with the fact that there has been no terror attack on US soil since 9/11. I find this position ridiculous, given that they place so much faith in an untested, unproven theory that follows the same logic.

Mad is a Theory....notice that word? Theory....Bush's policy being why we where not attacked is a theory , one not based on much at all.

Mad has ration behind it. Does the United States wish to die? no
Did the USSR wish to die? No. Did a nuke attack on one in almost any rational case end up with both sides dead? yes. thus there is not a good reason for one side to start anything.

 

[Sihouette]

Yes yes, the neocon far wingnut right wants armegeddon. After all, it's in the Bible! Nukes will make sure that happens. Madness has become a religion.

Never mind that the Bible was written, rewritten and rewritten for centuries by men with agendas themselves and is not the actual whole truth of Jesus Christ's teachings. Far from it in the case of mandating fulfilling of some roman redaction of 'prophetic visions' of an exterminating nightmare followed by the land of milk and honey for the "faithful". By definition, anyone promoting actions contrary to the passive and loving teachings of Jesus Christ is not one of the faithful.... Those people who pose as fulfillers of "God's plan", who know not the sublime wisdom of Jesus are those who should want to forstall the Final Judgement longer than anyone else. For I can assure you their fate will be worse than the lowest of secular scum.

We're tired of the christian-right's madness. Their insanity is no longer appealing. I was raised christian and do not consider myself left or even far left. Evidenced by my arguing fervently against gay marriage, among other things. I learned to see where men injected their agendas into christianity long long ago. Look at gays, they're trying to inject their agendas into x-tianity and they might get it done and a hundred years hence christians will believe that gayness is God-given. You learn a thing or two when you study the history of the christian faith from its very humble beginnings, through the Roman retailoring and the splintering groups...the layers of nacre layed down in various hues over the original grain of truth, including the "pearl" that the neocons have retooled.

I'm done. The time for the madness to stop is now. Call that left, call it right, call it middle, call it whatever you like. I call it sanity. Armegeddon is an errand of the foolish. The very people calling for it with joy [kid you not] will feel the cruelest slap from God for following a false path and leading others to assist to destroy the very world He created. Think you're right and I'm wrong? Care to gamble your soul burning in Hell for the rest of eternity on how sure you are?

No true christian should EVER hope for the destruction of anything God has created. Nor should they lift a hand to assist that destruction by others.

Let's look at a passage description from Revelations just for fun anyway:

Accordingly, the woman sits on the seven-headed beast as a symbol of her "seven hills" -- the seven hills of Rome. The woman is the city of Roman, here depicted as the persecutor of Christians. Then it says that the seven heads are also seven kings. And we can read from its cryptic terminology the references to the Emperors of Rome.
Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/revelation/white.html

Brain-teaser time. Guess who redacted Jesus's teachings for political reasons? Correct! The Roman Catholic Church. And guess where the Bible that christians follow today (after numerous earlier Gospels closest to Jesus's time were ripped from it and new language inserted to reflect their political agendas)? You guessed it again! The very same Bible they inherited from the Roman Catholic Church..

Now, the Book of Revelations was actually about the damage that Rome would do to christians. Although the language was not specific as to how that persecution would be most nefariously carried out, it is clear that the best way to adulterate christians and damn their souls is to lead them astray by their very own Holy Book. So the book of Revelations warns that only those who never turned their backs on Jesus' true teachings will be spared. And we all know Jesus's teachings were nothing about war and all about passive reflection and love.

You do the math, oh 'saved' ones..

 

[pocketfullofshells]

So what's your point? That continuing to build more and more weapons is the way to go? I don't see where you intend to go with this.

its a long path no nowhere already

 

[Sihouette]

And Oh what a long path to nowhere it's been...

One "for instance" is the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas that was tossed by the roman catholics because it depicted a woman, Mary Magdalene as 'the favorite disciple' of Jesus. She went on to found a church to teach his wisdom after his crucifixtion.

Big problem. The romans weren't having anything to do with a woman holding a high rank in an influential body like a church of all places. So any reference to her was changed to depict her as either a lesser player or a whore. In actuality, many biblical scholars believe that "John" the curiously anonymous [of all the other disciples who come with lengthy pedigrees of who they were the son of] 'favorite' disciple is actually the cherry-picked words of Mary Magdalene.

Any Gnostic Gospel referring to Mary's importance in the church was simply buried and not included in the Bible. Which is a shame because it is these very texts that held some of the closest renditions of Jesus's actual teachings. But having lauded Mary, the baby was thrown out with the "bathwater". Also there are references to another disciple, Peter I believe, being rabidly jealous of Jesus's relationship with Mary. Some have speculated his jealousy was the start of the unravelling of the preservation of some of the oldest known testaments to Jesus' spoken word [as he never wrote books himself].

In fact, in either Thomas' or Phillip's Gospel (I forget which one) reference was made to an extensive and highly esoteric set of practices that Jesus had only confided in Mary...and then she to the rest of the disciples... but because it seemed foreign or weird to them, undoubtedly accentuated by the fact that it came from a woman's mouth, and one some of them were openly jealous of, they rejected it outright, much to her dismay. And it was mysteriously removed, in its entirety, from the texts in a very obvious and purposeful fashion.

Gone are all those intricate nuggets of wisdom that may have made the difference of night and day.

Many hands have torn apart the original teachings of Jesus. And those hands were none other than the hands of Satan working through "well meaning" men. Enjoy your "salvation". Have fun with your nukes and propagating the destruction of God's handiwork with your muddied interpretation of Revelations..

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

That the logic is the same, and both notions are equally as flawed, yet one is held as gospel truth and the other is attacked for having no basis is reality.

But yes, I think we do need to make more and better weapons (we are behind in this already), and heavily invest in missile defense. We especially need to come up with a defense against an EMP attack.

If all there is to us is what we see physically, if death means eternal nothingness, then the Might is Right philosophy is correct. Grab all the gusto you can, father all the children you can get away with, slaughter the weak, crush your enemies, and show compassion and empathy for no one. Social Darwinism taken to its logical conclusion. I can't tell you that it's wrong, so if that's what you believe, then go for it. It worked for Temujin, the Genghis Khan, he is considered to be the most successful breeder in human history with about 1/3 of the human race showing traces of his genetic pattern.

We all get to choose whether they think the Universe runs on love or fear. Every weapon is a vote for fear.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Often the argument is made that no terror attack, following 9/11, was made on US soil and the policies of George Bush are the reason for this event. This argument does not sit well with many on the left, as they claim there is no evidence that the policies of Bush had anything to do with this event. It is argued that the absence of a terror attack does not prove that the policy was successful.

....For good reason.

What'd he say?

.....And, then.....what'd they DO?!!

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

This proves my position. MAD is not a legitimate theory because the only evidence to support it is the lack of a nuclear war. I am in no way arguing that the lack of a terror attack proves Bush's policies.

Therefore, it stands to reason that arms control agreements or theories like MAD are useless, and we need to heavily invest in new nuclear technologies and new missile defense programs in order to ensure the safety of America. The big supporters of nuclear cuts and arms control agreements are the Left.

Gee.....that's odd. I thought it was The Right that's been insisting Iran has no need for nukes....even after The Right attacked & occupied the country that DIDN'T have nukes!!!

The Left has a problem with Consistancy, huh? ​