A Question for the Left

[Mr. Shaman]

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.

.....And, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, TRW, Raytheon, Rockwell, Honeywell, Harris, Alden & General Electric support this message.

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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.

The ultimate-rationality, is....who (in their right mind) would want to survive such a CONFLAGARATION??!!!!

​

 

[Sihouette]

The US already is dying from mortal wounds inflicted wantonly and blatantly by the Bush administration.

Time to arm ourselves against the immediate threat.

 

[Dr.Who]

MAD was a policy of the cold war. And while there was a lot of rhetoric I am not sure that there was any real trend toward increased hostilities from the USSR toward the US. (I was pretty young, I could be wrong)

Meanwhile the terrorist we started fighting were growing in number and the number of attacks was growing greatly. 911 was just the latest in a series of attacks that were more numerous and more dangerous.

Because there was a trend, with no action at all we can be safe to say that there would have been more of them and they would have been worse. in contrast there is no trend for asteroids to be increasing in number so we would expect that the number of asteroid hits would be about the same.

Here is a link to some links to a list of terrorist attacks. Any of you are welcome to sift through them and pull out the ones committed by AQ and count how many happened before the war and how many happened after the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents

Look for the box that looks like this (each year is a link to a list):

1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

After you look at those huge lists of attacks (181 attacks in 2000) note that AQ has only committed one attack in 2005 (not in the US), no attacks in 2006, one attack in 2007 (not in the US), and one attack in 2009 (not in the US).

 

[Sihouette]

Golly. Those years coincide exactly with Texas' meddling [f-ing around] in the Middle East for purposes of keeping us dependant on oil there and monopolizing our nation's energy supply.

And the terrorists are mainly arab right? Or at least that's where their roots are, right? The oil countries, right?

The one's BigOil has been f-ing with covertly and overtly for decades, right? They're striking back? How odd? Weird...strange that some people from a given area might have serious frustration and issues with foreign powers coming in and inserting puppet powers in their region?

Why don't those damn terrorists just get over it?

They will, when a new director sits in the CIA and doesn't take pressure from Bush Sr.'s little group, and when Obama guarantees them respect and diplomacy instead of underhanded scheming..

Right Mr. Cheney?

 

[BigRob]

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.

Stop trying to refute a point I never tried to make.

 

[BigRob]

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.

Every weapon is a vote for security.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Every weapon is a vote for security.

It's a false sense of security, someone wil always show up with bigger guns eventually. Where is the Roman Empire, the Mongol Horde, the British Empire, and all of the other people who tried to buy safety with force?

As Jesus and Gandhi so eloquently showed us, there is no safety in numbers or anything else.

But far be it from me to stand in your way, if guns and bombs make you feel secure, then load up.

 

[Dr.Who]

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.

Actually there were attacks by AQ or islamists on US soil and occasionally embassies in

98, 97, 95, 94, and 93. All of those were in the ten years before 911.

There were also attacks in 2002 and 2006. (same wiki source listed recently)

But the important thing is that no matter how you measure the attacks - AQ on US soil, AQ off US soil, any terrorist at all anywhere, etc. the number and severity of attacks was greater before 911 and less afterwards.

In fact I think it is even more interesting to note that all terrorist attacks by anyone anywhere have decreased since the WOT.

 

[Dr.Who]

Golly. Those years coincide exactly with Texas' meddling [f-ing around] in the Middle East for purposes of keeping us dependant on oil there and monopolizing our nation's energy supply.

And the terrorists are mainly arab right? Or at least that's where their roots are, right? The oil countries, right?

The one's BigOil has been f-ing with covertly and overtly for decades, right? They're striking back? How odd? Weird...strange that some people from a given area might have serious frustration and issues with foreign powers coming in and inserting puppet powers in their region?

Why don't those damn terrorists just get over it?

They will, when a new director sits in the CIA and doesn't take pressure from Bush Sr.'s little group, and when Obama guarantees them respect and diplomacy instead of underhanded scheming..

Right Mr. Cheney?

There is no need to draw imaginary lines connecting the dots for the origins of AQ attacks. We know exactly how AQ began and why.

When the soviet union tried to take over Afghanistan the Islamist were opposed to the Soviet imperialism. The US opposed it too and supported the islamists making them stronger. Then:

"Following the Soviet Union's withdrawal from Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 had put the country of Saudi Arabia and its ruling House of Saud at risk as Saudi's most valuable oil fields (Hama) were within easy striking distance of Iraqi forces in Kuwait, and Saddam's call to pan-Arab/Islamism could potentially rally internal dissent.

In the face of a seemingly massive Iraqi military presence, Saudi Arabia's own forces were well armed but far outnumbered. Bin Laden offered the services of his mujahedeen to King Fahd to protect Saudi Arabia from the Iraqi army. The Saudi monarch refused bin Laden's offer, opting instead to allow U.S. and allied forces to deploy on Saudi territory.[56]

The deployment angered Bin Laden, as he believed the presence of foreign troops in the "land of the two mosques" (Mecca and Medina) profaned sacred soil. After speaking publicly against the Saudi government for harboring American troops, he was quickly forced into exile to Sudan.

On April 9, 1994 his Saudi citizenship was revoked.[57] His family publicly disowned him. There is controversy over whether and to what extent he continued to garner support from members of his family and/or the Saudi government.[58]"

Bin laden was pretty ticked at the US for first supporting him and then supporting his family but not through him that he began is attacks directly on us.

Now if you think the US should have allowed the Soviet union to take over the middle east or that we stopped the soviets for oil then you would be right. Or if likewise you think the US should have not been involved in the invasion of Kuwait then again you would be right. But most people think it was wise to stop the soviets and to go to kuwait.

 

[Dr.Who]

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:



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..

Those attempts to say that the US involvement in the middle east conflict is due to both the right and due to people who believe in armeggedon and then to malign the bible in the process are deeply flawed and in error in so many ways.

 

[BigRob]

It's a false sense of security, someone wil always show up with bigger guns eventually. Where is the Roman Empire, the Mongol Horde, the British Empire, and all of the other people who tried to buy safety with force?

The Roman Empire fell due to a lack of force, and an inability to defend itself. The British Empire gave up their power voluntarily after winning a world war. They did not have to do so.

But far be it from me to stand in your way, if guns and bombs make you feel secure, then load up.

If someone who wants you dead buys a gun, and you do not are you safe? If Iran goes nuclear, or Russia continues to be expansionist, and we sit back and ignore it, are we safe?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The Roman Empire fell due to a lack of force, and an inability to defend itself. The British Empire gave up their power voluntarily after winning a world war. They did not have to do so.
If someone who wants you dead buys a gun, and you do not are you safe? If Iran goes nuclear, or Russia continues to be expansionist, and we sit back and ignore it, are we safe?

When Gandhi forced the British out of India what good did all their guns do? No one is ever safe, get over it. Short of preemptive killing of all other people there is no way you are ever going to be safe. And even then an asteroid could land on you and you still wouldn't be safe.

 

[top gun]

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'd point out the fact that your first paragraph is glaring in it's misunderstanding of actual events by trying to place a "military policy component".

The 9-11 terrorist attacks were not "military attacks". The 9-11 terrorist attacks were a group of simple hijackings. Simple hijackings that should have always been stopped because Airline security should have always been to a standard where a passenger couldn't just walk into the cockpit.

Plus the thing that's especially telling is the Right spends a lot of time beating their chest (no offense Rob) that there were no more terrorist attacks on American soil... while skimming right over the real deal which is that the biggest terrorist attack on American soil of all times was accomplished >>>>>>>>>>>>> UNDER GEORGE BUSH'S WATCH WHEN THE REPUBLICANS ALSO HELD BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS AND COULD HAVE PUSHED THROUGH ANY SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS THEY HAD WANTED PRIOR TO 9-11.

I'm not saying they should have been mind readers here... no one is.

I'm simply saying to act as if they are the gate keepers of great security... well no. If anything I see the Republicans overcompensating ever since 9-11 as to not go down as the "pants down Party" in charge when the
9-11 attacks happend.

So in reality improving airline security (and other security improvements here at home) to a point where it always really should have been was the deterrent that stopped another terrorist attack and certainly not wasting about a TRILLION DOLLARS and the deaths of over 4200 brave American soldiers invading and occupying Iraq on what turns out to be a Bush administration full of selective intel & out right deception.

Just my opinion from everything I've seen... I don't expect everyone to agree.

 

[BigRob]

When Gandhi forced the British out of India what good did all their guns do? No one is ever safe, get over it. Short of preemptive killing of all other people there is no way you are ever going to be safe. And even then an asteroid could land on you and you still wouldn't be safe.

So we should not attempt to achieve security because an asteroid might fall on us? Enough nuclear weapons could divert an asteroid as well.

And, had Britain decided to they could have subdued India. I will agree that you are never fully safe, however you can be more safe than others. Why do you oppose striving to that goal?