Zogby poll

[vraiblonde]

I'm taking my Zogby survey and one of the questions is:

With the demise of the Soviet Union, an adversary with a large nuclear stockpile is no longer a major concern. Rogue states with nuclear missiles or small "suitcase" nuclear weapons are considered a much more likely threat. Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that the U.S. nuclear arsenal has lost its deterrent value?

DUR!!! "Being the biggest, baddest dude on the block has deterred our enemies from wanting to mess with us. Do you think we should continue to be the biggest, baddest dude on the block?"

 

[vraiblonde]

If you could add any ancestry to your background, what would it be?

Then there's a string of nationalities to answer from.

 

[Vince]

I'm taking my Zogby survey and one of the questions is:



DUR!!! "Being the biggest, baddest dude on the block has deterred our enemies from wanting to mess with us. Do you think we should continue to be the biggest, baddest dude on the block?"

Don't know about that, but if we want to continue to be the biggest, baddest dude on the block we better get our interceptor missiles to work properly. They failed the test again.

 

[Mikeinsmd]

DUR!!! "Being the biggest, baddest dude on the block has deterred our enemies from wanting to mess with us. Do you think we should continue to be the biggest, baddest dude on the block?"

I agree. We MUST ALWAYS remain the biggest/Baddest dude on the block!!

I'm happy with my American nationality but given my druthers, Aussie, British or Irish would be acceptable....

 

[vraiblonde]

There was one question that said, "If a pro-life Republican candiddate for President chose a pro-choice VP, what would you do?" and the answers are "vote for the Republican", "vote for the Democrat", "vote for someone else" or "not vote". (If you check that you're a Democrat, you get that question the other way around)

I guess it doesn't occur to Zogby that, as a Republican, I'm pro-abortion and, therefore, would be MORE likely to vote for the Republican.

 

[vraiblonde]

Another one wanted to know if I felt there was hypocrisy in the US strengthening it's nuclear program, while putting restrictions on countries like North Korea and Iran building their own nuclear program.

I answered "No".

 

[SmallTown]

I'm taking my Zogby survey and one of the questions is:



DUR!!! "Being the biggest, baddest dude on the block has deterred our enemies from wanting to mess with us. Do you think we should continue to be the biggest, baddest dude on the block?"

being the biggest and baddest and having a nuclear arsenal didn't really help much on 9/11. But for most sane countries, it is an effective deterrant

 

[vraiblonde]

being the biggest and baddest and having a nuclear arsenal didn't really help much on 9/11.

There's an obvious flaw in your statement. I'll give you a minute...

 

[SmallTown]

There's an obvious flaw in your statement. I'll give you a minute...

minute is up. tell me.

 

[vraiblonde]

minute is up. tell me.

We were coming off of a President that paid terrorists off instead of kicking their asses. Therefore, the 9-11 hijackers didn't realize their actions would provoke retaliation - they thought it would get some attention and dough, just like it did in the past.

Surprise!

 

[SmallTown]

We were coming off of a President that paid terrorists off instead of kicking their asses. Therefore, the 9-11 hijackers didn't realize their actions would provoke retaliation - they thought it would get some attention and dough, just like it did in the past.

Surprise!

you really dug deep into your ass to pull that one out! As if they didn't think that crashing planes into skyscrapers, the pentagon and who knows what else wouldn't cause retaliation! Damn, I need to get a tissue to wipe away these tears of laughter. Crazy people? perhaps. Stupid? No. They knew exactly what theu were dealing with (after all, our "foreign policy" is one driving force behind their hatred) and they still came after us.

But back to the original statement about has out nuclear power lost it's power to deter violence. On 9/11 they came after us. You've seen the videos and pics just as I have. They succeeded in their mission. Nothing detered them. If nothing else, it fueled them.

 

[vraiblonde]

As if they didn't think that crashing planes into skyscrapers, the pentagon and who knows what else wouldn't cause retaliation!

Well, let's see...

The blew a hole in the WTC in 1993 and how did we retaliate? (We didn't)

They took out a few of our embassies and how did we retaliate? (We didn't)

They blew up one of our Navy vessels and how did we retaliate? (We didn't)

Now...what were you saying?

 

[SmallTown]

Well, let's see...

The blew a hole in the WTC in 1993 and how did we retaliate? (We didn't)

They took out a few of our embassies and how did we retaliate? (We didn't)

They blew up one of our Navy vessels and how did we retaliate? (We didn't)

Now...what were you saying?

Much different scale there, vrai. Had any of those caused the kind of damage that 9/11 cause, who knows what the outcome would have been. I say osama was simply lucky that the first WTC bombing did not go as planned. As sad as it may sound, Neither Clinton nor Bush could have come close to justifying the war in afghanistan over the above mentioned events.

But you're still skirting the issue you brought up of does our nuclear arsenal deter this type of activity? The answer is no, some people simply don't care. Heck, if we went by the notion that we bow down to "the power", many of us would still be considered british.

 

[vraiblonde]

But you're still skirting the issue you brought up of does our nuclear arsenal deter this type of activity?

It's not our arsenal, per se, but the willingness to use it that deters them.

 

[Lenny]

Don't know about that, but if we want to continue to be the biggest, baddest dude on the block we better get our interceptor missiles to work properly. They failed the test again.

At the moment the only adversary working on a missle bothersome enough to threaten U.S. Soil (Alaska, and Northern California) is North Korea. So far they've successfully launched the Tepo-Dong II once. I don't think we need to sweat a crash program to field a nuclear missile attack. I'm willing to cede the North Koreans California if it comes to that.

Let's take our time fielding a successful system rather than faulting the current national administration for not having an invincible nuclear umbrella in place (the Dems tried to steal the White House in 2004 with that ploy [intimated that failure to field a flawless anti-terror shield was reason to fire Bush] and failed)

 

[Lenny]

Much different scale there, vrai. Had any of those caused the kind of damage that 9/11 cause, who knows what the outcome would have been. I say osama was simply lucky that the first WTC bombing did not go as planned. As sad as it may sound, Neither Clinton nor Bush could have come close to justifying the war in afghanistan over the above mentioned events.

But you're still skirting the issue you brought up of does our nuclear arsenal deter this type of activity? The answer is no, some people simply don't care. Heck, if we went by the notion that we bow down to "the power", many of us would still be considered british.

Ah, now I see. Your point is that the terrorists were looking for the threshold of violence at which the U.S. government would react. The old poke-and-wait, poke-and wait, hit-and-wait, hit-and-wait, slug-and-wait, slug-and-wait thing we see our three and four year olds do to each other in the back car seat on a long road trip?

In fact, you're right that a nation with homeland to defend is deterred by a nuclear arsenal. A multi-national terrorist group which moves freely across borders is not. But we dammmmmned well showed the nations that were giving them sancturary that we could respond without a nuclear weapon if the PRESIDENT IN THE WHITE HOUSE KEPT HIS BELT AROUND HIS WAIST AND TOOK HIS JOB SERIOUSLY!

 

[SmallTown]

It's not our arsenal, per se, but the willingness to use it that deters them.

but you just gave 5 examples in recent history of when it didn't deter :shrug:

 

[vraiblonde]

but you just gave 5 examples in recent history of when it didn't deter :shrug:

Now you're just being stupid because you know I'm right. Re-read the thread in a linear fashion, please.

 

[SmallTown]

Now you're just being stupid because you know I'm right. Re-read the thread in a linear fashion, please.

You always say stuff like this when you have no other direction. Ok, lets look at it in a linear fashion. Being such a short thread, I figired you would be able to handle it on your own. Guess not.

DUR!!! "Being the biggest, baddest dude on the block has deterred our enemies from wanting to mess with us. Do you think we should continue to be the biggest, baddest dude on the block?"

being the biggest and baddest and having a nuclear arsenal didn't really help much on 9/11. But for most sane countries, it is an effective deterrant

We were coming off of a President that paid terrorists off instead of kicking their asses. Therefore, the 9-11 hijackers didn't realize their actions would provoke retaliation - they thought it would get some attention and dough, just like it did in the past.

** Strike 1 against the original assertion that being the biggest, baddest on the block has deterred our enemies.

The blew a hole in the WTC in 1993 and how did we retaliate? (We didn't)

They took out a few of our embassies and how did we retaliate? (We didn't)

They blew up one of our Navy vessels and how did we retaliate? (We didn't)

** Strike 2,3, and 4 against the original assertion that being the biggest, baddest on the block has deterred our enemies.

It's not our arsenal, per se, but the willingness to use it that deters them.

Then I suppose strikes 1,2,3,and 4 above didn't happen? (Sorry, I said 5 examples earlier. Only 4 listed in this thread. My bad)

And since we had to go through so much detail here My original statement may have been forgotten, so here it goes:

being the biggest and baddest and having a nuclear arsenal didn't really help much on 9/11. But for most sane countries, it is an effective deterrant

So yes, against many countries I'm sure it is a deterrant. But for our current enemy in the world (according to Bush himself), the terrorists really don't care. And they have shown that over and over.






<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

 

[vraiblonde]

Dearest, what I'm trying to communicate to you is that, while we may have been the biggest and baddest during the 90s, it became clear to our enemies that we weren't going to actually use our might. That, instead, those who attacked us would either be ignored or rewarded for their actions.

I will suggest to you that bin Laden didn't realize that 9-11 would prompt Bush to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban. He probably figured that he'd get some money out of the deal, or at least some positive publicity for his cause, as this is what had happened as a result of previous attacks.

What he didn't count on was #1, this was Bush and not Clinton, and #2, the
US media didn't ignore it like they had done previously. 9-11 was too spectacular for them to just give it a brief mention then forget it.

AND I will also suggest that the media would have done just that very thing - covered the attacks, then let them fade away - had Bush not declared war. What makes me believe this is previous history, not to mention the way the mainstream liberal press DID cover the war.

A good analogy might be the neighborhood dirtbag who is constantly preying on his neighbor - stealing his stuff, scratching his car, physically asaulting him, etc - and all the neighbor has ever done is try and make "peace" with said bully by appeasing him and trying to stay out of his way. Then the neighbor sells his house and the bully tries this with the new owner, only to get his face punched in. 99% of the time, the attacks will stop.

So, again, I say: Being the biggest and baddest is a good thing, but it's nothing if you won't use your might to punish attackers.

I'm not sure how I can be any clearer in getting my point across.