A Question for the Left

[pocketfullofshells]

MAD is nothing but a deterrence theory. You can apply deterrence to anyone, and if it works, it should work in conventional terms as well. However, it rarely does.

contently there is the rational idea that you can use tactics, numbers, money, or just break the will of the enemy and win. Nukes don't give you that, you each fire 30 nukes, you both are basically dead.

 

[BigRob]

MAD is based on sane leaders, and Yes the leader of Iran is in fact sane. As is Israels, ...now North Korea yes he is insane, hence why its such a bad thing for them to have nukes. And do you realy think Putin was sitting there, thinking, we could nukes the US and somehow ever live to win that war?

I agree the leader in Iran is sane. However sane to him is perhaps insane to us. It is all relative, and makes it that much more dangerous.

Also what do you based your view that Russia was ready to use nukes in Georgia?

A conversation with a former undersecretary at the State Department. The comment was made by Russian generals.

 

[Andy]

A conversation with a former undersecretary at the State Department. The comment was made by Russian generals.

Which of course is one of the main reasons many on the right support a very strong stance. Why?

The whole reason Russia is willing to make that move, is because they do not believe we will respond. No one openly starts a war they believe will cause them to be anilated by a response.

Just like a criminal never commits a crime they believe could result in them being shot.

Saddam for example, only invaded Kuwait because he though we wouldn't respond. He only screwed with the U.N. because he knew Clinton would only fire a few missiles here and there. The only reason he allowed the U.N. inspector back into Iraq after 2000, was because he thought Bush might do something.

Ultimately, nuclear war will undoubtedly be started by someone thinking the other side won't do anything. Which is why political right believe in having a very strong showing, to make other understand that's not the case. Sadly, we're not showing that, and they do believe we won't do anything.

Just look at all the leftists here, trying to blame everything on oil. That gives are enemies more reason to believe we won't be willing to fight.

 

[Dr.Who]

Which of course is one of the main reasons many on the right support a very strong stance. Why?

The whole reason Russia is willing to make that move, is because they do not believe we will respond. No one openly starts a war they believe will cause them to be anilated by a response.

Just like a criminal never commits a crime they believe could result in them being shot.

Saddam for example, only invaded Kuwait because he though we wouldn't respond. He only screwed with the U.N. because he knew Clinton would only fire a few missiles here and there. The only reason he allowed the U.N. inspector back into Iraq after 2000, was because he thought Bush might do something.

Ultimately, nuclear war will undoubtedly be started by someone thinking the other side won't do anything. Which is why political right believe in having a very strong showing, to make other understand that's not the case. Sadly, we're not showing that, and they do believe we won't do anything.

Just look at all the leftists here, trying to blame everything on oil. That gives are enemies more reason to believe we won't be willing to fight.

That's a pretty good and pretty obvious insight. Obvious enough that it comes as news to me. MAD doesn't work if one side just does not believe the other side will do anything.

 

[Andy]

That's a pretty good and pretty obvious insight. Obvious enough that it comes as news to me. MAD doesn't work if one side just does not believe the other side will do anything.

Which is why the anti-nuclear, anti-war, anti 'doing anything to protect the US' protesters are actually inviting war by their actions.

Saddam was recorded as saying the US doesn't have the stomach for war. Where do you think he got that idea? From anti-war, everything is about oil, conspiracy protesting idiots, shouting all about and bugging everyone by blocking traffic in the streets.

The result? He attacked an ally, then screwed with us for 10 years.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I agree the leader in Iran is sane. However sane to him is perhaps insane to us. It is all relative, and makes it that much more dangerous.



A conversation with a former undersecretary at the State Department. The comment was made by Russian generals.

you ever listen to comments by russian Generals? they talk **** all the time, but then you listen to 6 others and they say different things. Does not mean they realy where ready to use them.

 

[BigRob]

you ever listen to comments by russian Generals? they talk **** all the time, but then you listen to 6 others and they say different things. Does not mean they realy where ready to use them.

There are certain generals that you can simply ignore, however when certain generals make comments, you know its accurate.

The Russians have a fundamentally different viewpoint than we do on the use of nuclear weapons, that is just a fact. Their security strategy spells it out.

You can believe it or not, but this is what you are dealing with when making decisions.

 

[Cookie Parker]

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?

What a bogus question dodging your statement of no attacks on the US soil since 9/11.

Let me ask you this. With all the intelligence which Clinton had on the group who DID attack UNDER Bush's watch, why did Bush allow it to happen?

THAT is what is at issue.

 

[Cookie Parker]

In addition, there were no attacks on US soil after 1993 with Clinton. What's your point? That Bush did as good a job as Clinton? I don't think so. Clinton caught, tried and has his people responsible for the bombing in prison. bin Laden is still loose, gathering forces, and wreaking havoc worldwide.

 

[BigRob]

What a bogus question dodging your statement of no attacks on the US soil since 9/11.

Let me ask you this. With all the intelligence which Clinton had on the group who DID attack UNDER Bush's watch, why did Bush allow it to happen?

THAT is what is at issue.

Look, I did not make the statement, I pointed out that it was made. Did I advocate that position? No. I mean seriously, I never advocated for that position and every response has been "well how can you say that!!??"

I did not say that, or ever advocate for that position. You are more than welcome to misinterpret the entire thread however...

This is not a pro-Bush thread, or an anti-Clinton thread, get off your partisan crap. It is simply pointing out the logic on arms control and deterrence (which many on the left take as gospel truth) is no more founded than the state that Bush prevented all future terror attacks on US soil.

 

[Dr.Who]

What a bogus question dodging your statement of no attacks on the US soil since 9/11.

Let me ask you this. With all the intelligence which Clinton had on the group who DID attack UNDER Bush's watch, why did Bush allow it to happen?

THAT is what is at issue.

I applaud FP Cllinton for doing what he did do. He needed to have done more. meanwhile the left will not criticize him for this. Before 911 FP Bush also needed to do more. After 911 he did do more but the left criticizes him mercilessly for this. And now you have the nerve to criticize him for not doing more before. If you will criticize him for waging a war after we are attacked on US soil how much more you all would have raked him over the coals if he had taken any aggressive action before we were attacked on US soil. Let's face it many on the left will not criticize liberals for anything and you will criticize those who are not liberals for everything.

 

[top gun]

I applaud FP Cllinton for doing what he did do. He needed to have done more. meanwhile the left will not criticize him for this. Before 911 FP Bush also needed to do more. After 911 he did do more but the left criticizes him mercilessly for this. And now you have the nerve to criticize him for not doing more before. If you will criticize him for waging a war after we are attacked on US soil how much more you all would have raked him over the coals if he had taken any aggressive action before we were attacked on US soil. Let's face it many on the left will not criticize liberals for anything and you will criticize those who are not liberals for everything.

WOW BAD ANALOGY there Who.

Bush was criticized for invading and occupying Iraq a country that by all account had absolutely nothing, zero, nodda thing in the world to do with the 9-11 attacks you cite.

I don't blame Clinton or Bush for terrorist attacks. This was a new & developing set of circumstances & situations we had really never encountered much before.

But I can blame a President that invades the wrong country costing thousands of American lives and probably in the end a Trillion dollars. Not to speak at all of the tens of thousands of civilian casualties.

What George Bush did was tantamount to as if President Clinton after the first Trade Center bombing had invaded Venezuela because he didn't like their leader.

These last 8 years have not been good ones just because of one thing after another like this.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I applaud FP Cllinton for doing what he did do. He needed to have done more. meanwhile the left will not criticize him for this. Before 911 FP Bush also needed to do more. After 911 he did do more but the left criticizes him mercilessly for this. And now you have the nerve to criticize him for not doing more before. If you will criticize him for waging a war after we are attacked on US soil how much more you all would have raked him over the coals if he had taken any aggressive action before we were attacked on US soil. Let's face it many on the left will not criticize liberals for anything and you will criticize those who are not liberals for everything.

<-lefty....critizied him for not doing enough.....also attacked the Right who never cared that he did not do enough, and attacked him when he did do anything..possibly part of hte reason he did not in fact do enough.

 

[Dr.Who]

I am sure there are the rare few who make those distinctions. For the most part the left cares little for such distinctions and just takes every opportunity to criticize Bush and applaud Clinton based not at all on the actual actions but based on their party.

We all know that is true.

The reverse is true of the right as well.