Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Re: France, suddenly has backbone
Oh, while I don't consider any of it the gospel, I would be wary of being too confident, and not only for the reasons you note above. I would also add that actions other than the invasions likely hurt them more.
Yes, it was for the public, thus less than truthful. A lie if you will.
But I don't believe it makes in more manageable. In fact, the opposite. Freedom, freedom of movement, of association, privacy, all of that makes management more difficult and not less. So, I don't think freedom helps is in terms of terrorism. it may help in other areas, but not terrorism.
As for think tanks, you're right. I noted myself that it wasn't the gospel. It just made more sense than the rationale given to the public. I was not arguing they had it down or had inside information.
I also think words like necessary and last resort have actual meanings. Choice is a different word with a different meaning. To our favor, doesn't mean necessary. Just because something might work to our favor (or not as it too often turns out) cannot really be argued as necessary. War is serious business. Asking young men and women to die is serious. The standard for saying it is necessary should be high. There is something called just war theory, and that type of rationale, as a standard works better than ad hoc efforts. Having a standard, having core values, these help us when faced with more difficult choices. It also prevents us from trying to contort language into meanings the words don't mean, and unreasonable into reasonable.
Well, I'm not one to judge for you. But I think too contorting is being done to twist anything into counting. I don't think anything in the constitution supports aggression or imperialism. I would be interested in either showing it to me in the constitution, or showing how our actions were not aggressive, and not imperialistic. After all, our interests does not mean those countries attacked us. The fact is we invaded and conquered two countries and neither attacked us.
Al-Queda is absolutely fractured and beyond crippled. Has been for years. Never believe an Intel report that plays it safe. If the CIA reported how wrecked the Al-Queda network is and the next day an attack occurs somewhere in the world with individuals claiming Al-Queda influence, then people would get fired and the CIA got ridiculed in the media. These type reports released to the public are always inaccurate and will always play it safe. It's always better to predict failure and to be wrong then predict success and be wrong.
Oh, while I don't consider any of it the gospel, I would be wary of being too confident, and not only for the reasons you note above. I would also add that actions other than the invasions likely hurt them more.
Bush's rational was for the public because like so many other things, the public needs a simple answer to deal with a complex issue. Spreading Democracy creates an environment where issues like "terrorism" are more manageable. Nobody ever stated that all terrorism will end when people vote. This was always a false argument used by the Left because they didn't have the creativity to actually make arguments about the whole affair. And today we see Conservatives doing the same thing against Obama.
Yes, it was for the public, thus less than truthful. A lie if you will.
But I don't believe it makes in more manageable. In fact, the opposite. Freedom, freedom of movement, of association, privacy, all of that makes management more difficult and not less. So, I don't think freedom helps is in terms of terrorism. it may help in other areas, but not terrorism.
As for think tanks, you're right. I noted myself that it wasn't the gospel. It just made more sense than the rationale given to the public. I was not arguing they had it down or had inside information.
I also think words like necessary and last resort have actual meanings. Choice is a different word with a different meaning. To our favor, doesn't mean necessary. Just because something might work to our favor (or not as it too often turns out) cannot really be argued as necessary. War is serious business. Asking young men and women to die is serious. The standard for saying it is necessary should be high. There is something called just war theory, and that type of rationale, as a standard works better than ad hoc efforts. Having a standard, having core values, these help us when faced with more difficult choices. It also prevents us from trying to contort language into meanings the words don't mean, and unreasonable into reasonable.
I don't know what I am.
Well, I'm not one to judge for you. But I think too contorting is being done to twist anything into counting. I don't think anything in the constitution supports aggression or imperialism. I would be interested in either showing it to me in the constitution, or showing how our actions were not aggressive, and not imperialistic. After all, our interests does not mean those countries attacked us. The fact is we invaded and conquered two countries and neither attacked us.