211–220 of 228 posts
In the same way, the NSA having a dossier on everyone is the same as them having a dossier on no one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the invasion of Afghanistan was inevitable, but not Iraq. Afghanistan was a big mistake (even Rthe USSR, with a land border, couldnt handle it) but Iraq was worse and bizarre.
>I think the invasion of Afghanistan was inevitable Inevitable as in "in response to 9/11"? I don't think so, it was planned months, if not years before September 2001. [edit, corrected typo to 2001] http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/afgh-n20.shtml US planned war in Afghanistan long before September 11 By Patrick Martin 20 November 2001 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm Tuesday, 18 September,…
Prior planning is not proof of future action. For instance the U.S. spent decades planning in great detail how to go to war with the USSR, but we never did it.
Put another way--every war-like situation the U.S. has ever entered was pre-planned to some extent. But we also planned for a great many wars that never happened.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bin Laden's aim was to push the US into a war that would bankrupt them. I'd call that mission accomplished.
Importantly, to remove their presence out of the middle east and change their foreign policy. This is not happening though so not accomplished.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"It is up to each of us to form an opinion using the evidence that we have available." This sounds noble, but in fact it is the way of madness. Information does not stand on its own. Without the right background knowledge and experience you cannot assign any level of certainty to a deduction you make from a piece of information. Just because you are capable of interpreting some of the information and forming reasonab…
Ceding your opinions to those who "know" requires first identifying them as such. So yeah, it may sound smart to the layman, but that was just a bunch of pointless sophistry and FUD. Moving on...
Yes, of course you have to identify the "experts" in order to know what their perspective is. In this case, the vast majority of knowledgeable people have settled around the consensus that the "official" explanation (two planes crashed into the WTC) is indeed plausible.
But you ignored my second point entirely: if there is (reasonable) dissent, then you can't just pick one side and say they're correct. In fact, by not knowing the underlying science, you can't even participate in the debate. So there's no point in saying "a bunch of engineers and architects have signed their names to this paper saying it's all a conspiracy" when you have no idea why that's the truth (if it were).
Finally, spreading uncertainty and doubt (what about what I said is spreading fear?) is a good thing where false certainty and false wisdom prevail.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Clinton would have attacked Afghanistan, sure. But would he have stayed in Afghanistan and/or attacked Iraq? Those are the two items that have cost dearly.
There were two big reasons reasons the US went into Iraq. One was Saddam Hussein and WMD. Everyone believed that he had them, and it's a matter of fact that he had used them in the past. Though they were never found, it's not illogical to believe that he was simply able to move them elsewhere or destroy them before they were discovered. And taking out his regime would remove a large destabilizing factor in that part…
Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq. There are lot of sources for some of the quotes that I will take here:
* "Four countries participated with troops during the initial invasion phase, which lasted from 19 March to 9 April 2003. These were the United States (148,000), United Kingdom (45,000), Australia (2,000), and Poland (194)." - So out of all the EU countries only UK and Poland went to the war.
* "The invasion of Iraq was strongly opposed by some long-standing U.S. allies, including the governments of France, Germany, New Zealand, and Canada."
* "On 15 February 2003, a month before the invasion, there were worldwide protests against the Iraq war, including a rally of three million people in Rome, which is listed in the Guinness Book of Records as the largest ever anti-war rally."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Um... I was on anti Iraq war demos when I was 18, because it was obvious to me Saddam Hussein had no WMDs. And I was _not_ alone in this assumption: "In London, at least 750,000 people demonstrated in what police called the city's largest demonstration ever." Source: http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Protest-Iraq-War16feb03...
But I bet that most of those 750,000 believed that Iraq had WMD's of some sort, perhaps very limited in capability. But they also believed that a war was an inappropriate response to the existence of those WMD's.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ceding your opinions to those who "know" requires first identifying them as such. So yeah, it may sound smart to the layman, but that was just a bunch of pointless sophistry and FUD. Moving on...
Pointless sophistry? To which your counterargument is "moving on..."? Yes, of course you have to identify the "experts" in order to know what their perspective is. In this case, the vast majority of knowledgeable people have settled around the consensus that the "official" explanation (two planes crashed into the WTC) is indeed plausible. But you ignored my second point entirely: if there is (reasonable) dissent, the…
See? That's sophistry. Instead of explaining (or rather, thinking about) how one would identify knowledgeable people, you skip to what they are allegedly saying. Also, citation needed.
"In fact, by not knowing the underlying science, you can't even participate in the debate."
But here's the thing, I do, and I do have eyes. So I'm all up for the debate, but it's mostly hand-waving like you just did. 9/11 was stonewalled and swept under the rug. I payed attention back then and nothing new came up since then, you didn't post anything either.
"what about what I said is spreading fear?"
You cannot possibly know everything, better ask the experts. (Who are the experts? Ask the expert experts?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But I bet that most of those 750,000 believed that Iraq had WMD's of some sort, perhaps very limited in capability. But they also believed that a war was an inappropriate response to the existence of those WMD's.
No, it was more or less assumed to be bollocks. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix#Iraq_disarmament_.27... for an idea of what we were hearing).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pointless sophistry? To which your counterargument is "moving on..."? Yes, of course you have to identify the "experts" in order to know what their perspective is. In this case, the vast majority of knowledgeable people have settled around the consensus that the "official" explanation (two planes crashed into the WTC) is indeed plausible. But you ignored my second point entirely: if there is (reasonable) dissent, the…
"Yes, of course you have to identify the "experts" in order to know what their perspective is. In this case, the vast majority of knowledgeable people have settled around the consensus that the "official" explanation (two planes crashed into the WTC) is indeed plausible." See? That's sophistry. Instead of explaining (or rather, thinking about) how one would identify knowledgeable people, you skip to what they are all…
1. Defer to the majority opinion of qualified engineers, if one exists.
2. Hold no opinion whatsoever.
3. Become a qualified engineer.
I am currently doing (1) because I believe a majority opinion exists and that opinion is "airplanes hit the WTC on 9/11". If that is not true, then I would accept evidence to the contrary (high statistical confidence, random sample, repeated by multiple sources).
I could do (2), which would be perfectly legitimate, but I do not feel it is necessary (I am not aware of any dispute among even a sizable minority--I define sizable here to be at least a third who either disagree or are uncertain).
In order for me to do (3), I would need to take a few years off work and study engineering full time. Even then, I may not have what it takes to become a qualified engineer. Unless you are willing to pay for this option, you can't fault me for it. I am not pretending to be an engineer.
We live in a world of finite possibilities. I am no more demanding that you should understand advanced mathematics (what I know most about) than you should demand I understand civil engineering and materials science. I would expect you to accept a consensus of mathematicians on such matters, just as I've accepted (what I believe to be) the consensus of engineers.
That's what I like to call living in the realities of an imperfect world.
I really fucking hate the right wing and its authoritarian ideology. It's like there are two separate and distinct species of people on this planet: those with empathy and compassion for their fellow man, and these kinds of assholes who just want nothing but control. It's one of the reasons I got out of the US. My worry is I won't be allowed to return one day.
This isn't about the left wing or the right wing, it's the authoritarian wing. Jeff Flake, Ron Paul, Justin Amish, Gary Johnson, Rand Paul are all right wing and don't want to see you under the eye or chain. On the authoritarian left, we have Obama: - Ordered the killing of US citizens with no due process. - Signed the National Defence Authorization Act, so now any American, at home or abroad, can be locked up with n…