Posts by Neil Morrison
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I heard Banks on Morning Report, after spending quite a bit of time patronising the PI comunity ("I want to elevate them"), then go on to say he didn't want to patronise them. He really did come over very smarmy.
-
I'd be interested to read it at length if you have a link.
That was my attempt at humour again, Fermat and his famous lack of space.
I haven't got time to reply, maybe later this evening.
-
I think any time you're coming up with a moral argument against a scientific theory, you've forgotten what science is. Unless of course you deeply believe that the universe is ultimately moral.
I was being mildly ironic but yes, I have a proof of a moral argument against science but there's not quite enough room here to write it down.
Certainly every action is either better, or worse, or neutral for some people. Those are the three outcomes. But it doesn't follow from that, that because there are three outcomes that they split across the population.
There are available to us an infinite number of choices so therefore there must be an infinite number of consequences. All of which are true in some universe. Some of those consequences will be Good, some will be Bad. It's partly about the nature of infinity, Cantor etc.
-
Or to put it more pluntly, the moral consequence of the multiverse theory is that the actions of Hitler and Gandhi are equivalent.
A moral argument against a scientic theory perhaps?
-
And the French are not exempt from sabre rattling just by virtue of thinking Iraq was a stupid idea. They certainly don't want any other 4th rate nuclear powers out there. That would undermine their own tenuous status as the lamest power to have the UN Security Council veto.
yeah, maybe. But on the other hand their concerns might just be genuine. It's worth considering. (but you might be amused to know France got the bomb so they could aim it at North Africa, not Eastern Europe).
I was thinking how the multiverse thing could have moral implications.
We all like to believe that our actions will make the world a better place, even if just in a small way. But if at every opportunity of action the universe splits into an infinite number of alternative universes, all going down those paths of different choices, then half of those alternatives will lead to a better world and half will lead to a worse world.
So by every action we condemn the people in half the multiverses to a worse existence. It reminds me of Alvy in Annie Hall. Brooklyn is expanding.
-
I think Iran is a huge sabre rattling exercise for an administration desperate to take focus from Iraq.
That's one possibility but it doesn't explain why countries other than the US are more than a little concerned about Iran. France, you know - that country that spent a lot of time opposing the US over Iraq, is voicing grave concern (and that predates Sarkozy).
It's all very easy to talk about Bush the warmonger blah blah, but it's not necessary to have as a corollary that we have nothing to worry about as regards Iran. Maybe it's not all just a neocon conspiracy that a secretive and repressive theocracy seeking the bomb is something democracies should be concerned about.
Some one up thread took up the alternative options theme, suggesting reinvigorating what seemed to be a thaw back in 2003. I would agree that at that time the Bush admin, fresh from overthrowing Saddam, acted with hubris towards Iran and possibly destroyed the chances for reconciliation. But it works both ways. If we look at North Korea, Bush has no problem with a repressive regime having a peaceful nuclear programme and will negotiate trade and aid with NK to get their acceptance. Iran a present doesn't look interested in making such a deal with the US or the rest of the international community.
-
OTOH, given recent statements from the French leadership ...
They've nobbled Brown and Sarkozy, clever bastards. Watch out RB.
I think that should play a part in everyone's thinking as the ad campaign for the next adventure rolls out.
yeah it does, be assured.
-
Anything else I can clear up for you?
Just the bit where in the Dan Rather interview Saddam refuses exile. From the horses mouth. No intermediaries.
He was given that option, it was given a lot of attention at the time -
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/17/sprj.irq.main/
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/622/eg1.htm
http://www.iht.com/articles/2003/01/31/policy_ed3__4.php
http://www.iht.com/articles/2003/03/18/a1_21.php
it's just that he chose otherwise. I am really surprised this is news - it was talked about quite a lot at the time. he may very well have led the Egyptians on. But what he says to Rather is very clear.
The bombing plan has had its most positive reception from the newly elected government of Britain’s Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. A senior European official told me,
Podhoretz is crazy, but that does not mean that Iran is not trouble. I mean, why not address the far saner views of the leading Dems?
I don't want to go on about Hersh, but I can't help but think this from his article is a bit odd -
The bombing plan has had its most positive reception from the newly elected government of Britain’s Prime Minister, Gordon Brown.
well, according to a senior European official. They must have a better understanding of Brown than British officials. I never thought that Brown as PM was going to ring Robert Fisk for advice on foreign policy but I'm really skeptical about what Hersh is claiming here, yet again from anonymous officials.
-
He's generally been on the money. He reported years ago that Saddam had offered, via the Egytptians, to vacate Iraq before the invasion -- which was confirmed this month.
But he was wrong. Exile was offered to Saddam and he refused. I'm surprised this is news. In the Dan Rather interview just prior to the war Saddam makes it very clear that he refused that option. He may at some point have conisered it and/or the Egyptians may have thought he had, but that's not what he decided eventually.
Are you seriously suggesting that Hersh fabricates sources?
He's got it wrong in the past, being a bit on the conspiratorial side (not to deny he hasn't been spectacularly right when he does get it right). But it's more that I'm a little puzzled that the Cheney team should be telling the whole world their plans. I assume they actually do want to broadcast this and anonymous former intelligence people appears to be the Washington DC way.
And the only reason I can think of for doing that is to prove to Iran the US means business. The Iraqi govt is reporting that Iran is prepared to stop their unhelpful activities so maybe this is working. (And yes I did conflate the nuclear and Iraq issues but the same reasoning applies).
But I wasn't meaning this as an attack on Hersh but rather an attempt to broaden the deabte slightly to consider how this fits in with the position of the Dems (i.e. they all, even hero of the doves Obama, consider Iran trouble) and what might be a better strategy if Bush's is the wrong one. What I see mostly is, and excuse the generalistion, "Bush is a war monger so there's not really a problem with Iran".
-
Hersh is either working for the Cheney team or lives in a land of make-believe.
It’s hard to get a handle on how reliable his anonymous “former intelligence” sources are, if they do exist. But if they aren’t just making things up to sound important once again then they must be being feed info Cheney wants spread about. The only reason for that is to make Iran believe that military action is a very real possibility (so they don't see it as mere bluff and decide to continue their nuclear weapons programme).
So articles like Hersh’s play that sort of role.
It’s worth noting that neither Barak or Clinton are unwilling to rule out the military option and Wes Clark (now backing Clinton and no neocon hawk) believes the US cannot let Iran go nuclear. So those who take exception to the approach of Bush really do need to at least recognise that the Iran issue is not just some neocon beat-up (Bill Clinton was pretty tough on Iran) and perhaps come up with some realistic alternative approaches.