Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Anyone for a trip to Iraq to find out for ourselves?
Only on the condition that I can bring my wife and child. Wouldn't want to leave them in NZ, wouldn't be safe with all these terrorists.
-
But to state that we just start wars or murder entire populations just because we can't try rational debate, is a bit extreme and irrational don't you think?
Andrew, I didn't suggest anything of the sort. I suggested that wars and murders often happen because people are unwilling to debate the issues. They follow your reasoning that polarized camps exist which simply will not change their position, in which case rationality has lost value and fighting is an option.
It seems that way with Iraq, bigtime. There was no protracted debate in the US of the pros and cons of invading. What debate there was did not show that the course that was actually followed took heed of the majority of opinions on the issue, even within the US, much less the world at large (which when it comes to war does actually matter).
The UN was written off as a debating society, and the advice of the only competent independent agency, the IAEA, was totally ignored. The evidence of the supposed casus belli, WMDs, was not given out in debate. Many insiders in the agencies who were being held up as having given the President secret information about the WMDs squealed out and said bullshit, particularly some of the people who had actually been given important jobs directly relating to the claims. Even insiders to the hawk camp, like Colin Powell, had serious reservations about the excuses and the outcomes of the war. Since he was a big part of the first Gulf War, you'd have thought his opinion might have mattered.
I agree that there is no perfect standard for rationality. But that is not sufficient reason to write the process of debate off entirely. It is by far the best method ever invented by man for decision making, and it should be used everywhere it can be. In the end, decisions must be made, of course, which commits to courses of action which are obviously not 100% certain. Every time I take a step, I am trusting that the floor or the ground will not give way beneath me. This is not 100% certain. Sometimes there are such collapses. But most of the time they're incredibly unlikely.
As a leader of an enormous army, pondering a huge mobilization into another country, there is a huge duty to consider debate, particularly when the threat posed by the other country to yourself is minimal. This duty of care was utterly neglected by the US system, and particularly by the administration.
-
Andrew, I'm not surprised the views are polarized. Extreme violence has that effect, which is why you don't do it lightly if you value rational debate. If, on the other hand, you think rational debate is just a waste of time because everyone has their views anyway, then why not just start a war? Seems to have been the reasoning used at the start of this one. And that's how it continues. Why bother reasoning with Sunnis when you can just murder them? Why find out what a town demands when you could just bomb it flat? Why not blow up Americans? Why not shoot everyone in a turban on the assumption they're a terrorist? Why not torture a confession out?
-
On a non-reptilian shapeshifter note, I can't help noticing that some of the PA bloggers have been a bit quiet of late. Come back cuzzies! Are they in hibernation or something?
Look out the window! Some of them must be getting their pasty-white/light brown/light yellow arses a bit of sun.
And despite this being a record breaking thread, the overall tone is that 'we'll have to wait and see' which is pretty rational, something PA trends towards.
-
Pedantry:
I think there's a limit to how long it's possible to go on denying the research.
Swap possible for tenable in there. Clearly it's possible since James Bremner does it every time he speaks on the subject.
-
I wish that the American government had got some peer review on their claims that Iraq had WMDs.
You forget that America is 'without peer'.
-
But you can make reasonable predictions can't you? In fact you need to, don't you?
You can, but you don't treat them as facts. There are many other possible outcomes than the ones you mentioned, and the probabilities are all highly debatable.
-
The other aspect no one pays much attention to is what would be the situation in the Middle East if Saddam was still in power today.
That's because no one actually knows. But you've got your story, the old WMDs eh? They're still there man, just gotta look harder.
-
James, cherry picking some not-quite-so-shit statistics again, huh?
Here's a question for your good news? How many casualties were there in Iraq in Sept 01 and 02? Civilian, terrorist, Iraq military and American breakdown would be good. That might put it in perspective.
Also, how big was Al Quaeda in Iraq then? Just curious whether that's improved under the American Military Dictatorship, or only since last year.
Dropping support for Al Quaeda would be good news if it wasn't like 'declining market share for IBM', which obviously doesn't necessarily mean that the whole IT industry is going sour, just that it's a competitive business.
-
Here's an interesting analogy. Iraq is to the US as coke is to a high income junkie. A foolish choice. An ongoing burden. A source of delusions. A squanderer of friends. A source of bad company. But the cost of giving up is some serious pain, and a resolution to change one's ways.
Does the US have it in them? Can they even admit they have a war problem?
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 … 1066 Older→ First