Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 61

Thread: Farsighted academics

  1. #1
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default Farsighted academics

    Just in case someone searches for proven, farsighted academics (a.k.a. Cassandras):

    They were quite spot-on in my opinion, about 80% right (just too 'right' and not enough 'left' in point 4).

    Maybe next time they get more attention (or maybe the society advances and learns to listen to such voices and to identify them without trial & error).


    ***I mobilize all my self-discipline to not add an acid comment from an European's point of view.***
    Last edited by Jedburgh; 01-24-2009 at 09:28 PM. Reason: Added link.

  2. #2
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    Depends on your definition of "far-sighted". I think the reasons for rejecting that advice were for considerations farther over the horizon than the issues listed.

  3. #3
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Heh. We can disagree on most of that

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    Just in case someone searches for proven, farsighted academics...They were quite spot-on in my opinion, about 80% right (just too 'right' and not enough 'left' in point 4).
    I'm sure they were pretty well spot on in their opinion as well but we all have opinions and many will differ with them and with you.

    I do for one. Not least because they missed the entire -- not the stated -- reason for the attack. They say that military force should only be used when it advances US national interest. I agree. They say that attacking Iraq does not meet that test. Given the reasons they cite, I again agree. Given the actual reason -- to send a message to the Middle East that we would no longer accept their probes and minor attacks as we had since 1979 with no effective response; they're simply wrong. Our interests were advanced.

    They also say that the first Bush administration did not attack Iraq proper in 1991 to avoid destabilizing the Middle East. True (A bad decision on their part -- it would have been easier then); they apparently do not understand that the attack in 2003 was intended to destabilize the Middle East. Just enough. Without interrupting the world's oil supply -- we really want China and India to have all the oil they need. All that seems to have worked out rather well thus far.

    So their judgment was badly flawed and I'd further suggest it is even today entirely too early to determine the final validity of their position or mine...
    Maybe next time they get more attention (or maybe the society advances and learns to listen to such voices and to identify them without trial & error).
    Probably not. Many Academics sometimes miss practical and real world things...
    I mobilize all my self-discipline to not add an acid comment from an European's point of view.
    Don't restrain yourself, we're aware of your attitude and still respect your judgment on other things. We have long understood that Europe would approve of little we do. Even as they have asked us to help sort out their internal problems over the years. What Europe too frequently forgets is that if our forebears had wanted to be Europeans and do things as they do, we wouldn't be here...

  4. #4
    i pwnd ur ooda loop selil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Belly of the beast
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    I'm a far-sighted academic. Thankfully I bought glasses to fix that.
    Sam Liles
    Selil Blog
    Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
    The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
    All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.

  5. #5
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Jedburgh doesn't like you to see an actual scan from imageshack, so we can only look at a text version until someone finds a scan on a page that pleases Mr. Jedburgh.

    http://www.bear-left.com/archive/2002/0926oped.html

  6. #6
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    Kudos to Mr. Jedburgh. This version doesn't strain my eyes so much. Unfortunately, the "far-sighted" academics still don't appear to be very far-sighted. They appear to have near-term concerns. And most of them are not counterpoints to our reasons for wiping the slate in Iraq. Their near-term concerns largely appear to have played out. But, so what?

    I could make similar near-term claims about someone undergoing open heart surgery:
    - your heart is in rough shape, but there is no proof that you'll die from it anytime soon
    - even if you get the operation, there is no guarantee that your condition will markedly improve
    - you didn't get the operation 10 years ago for the reasons cited above
    - you're going to lose a lot of blood
    - you'll get a nasty scar
    - the doctor's bill will be outrageous
    - you may need a long time to recover
    - there will be discomfort after the operation

    Does that make me a prescient fortune-teller? Are those reasons to not get the surgery - especially if you're rich and otherwise in decent shape?

    I did not get my views published in 2002 because I was not a learned academic scholar. I was just a 2LT who watched Colin Powell's presentation to the UN on live TV. My thoughts at the time: "holy crap... that's it? THAT'S IT? That's all that we've got? The public is not going to support this war if it lasts more than a month. The administration needs to play it straight with the people and explain that this is a long-term endeavor for long-term strategic reasons concerning the entire region - not just a preventive strike on a possible WMD threat. The public is not going to buy this once the bodies start arriving in Dover."

    I think that was more far-sighted, because it goes directly to whether we will achieve our long-term goals. The short-term concerns expressed by the pointy-headed scholars basically boil down to "war is unpredictable and costly." Very interesting. Did they get a federal grant to figure that out?

  7. #7
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Their reasoning was MUCH better than that of the government (WHICH GOT RE-ELECTED after their blunder). They disagreed on several government claims that proved to be outright wrong.
    Being smarter and having better conclusions than the government is a good trait for experts.

    The majority of Europeans was smarter than the Bush team, but since the U.S.Americans don't listen to Europeans they could at least choose their experts wisely.

    And contrary your side blow about funding, they spent their own money to warn the public at a time when the media failed in its mission.
    That's what's known as civil courage in Germany - to stem your weight against bad actions (including against the government) even when you have reason to worry about your well-being (in this case in the profession) if you do so.
    They showed character when the vast majority of think tank talking heads swam with the current into the wrong direction.

    THAT is why they proved their value and deserve to be listened to next time they advise the public.

    Who wants to bet against me when I assert that Michael O'Hanlon* still gets more time on TV than 80% of the people (if not all) who signed the NYT ad in 2002 together?

  8. #8
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    I'm not sure if you're...
    a) restating the same belief that you arrived here with
    b) responding to either me or Ken and, in the process, completely ignoring or misinterpreting* everything that we wrote
    c) both

    But if it makes you feel good...

    * - the funding note was a dig at the obviousness of what they wrote, not a suggestion that they didn't pay for the ad - again, it seems that you're ignoring what was written, since I do not dispute the accuracy of their predictions; I dispute the relevance.

  9. #9
    Council Member RTK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Wherever my stuff is
    Posts
    824

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    That's what's known as civil courage in Germany - to stem your weight against bad actions (including against the government) even when you have reason to worry about your well-being (in this case in the profession) if you do so.
    God know's I love acidity. I'm on Nexium because of it.

    I'm not sniping, just making a point.

    First, I understand your contemptuous tone towards the US and have since you started posting here but I've said nothing. I respect your right to express your opinion. I admit we entered Iraq under pretenses that proved false later. I've spent two years in that country as a result. The chest beating of how smart the "majority of Europeans" were over the "Bush Team" does very little to further your position.

    Be careful on the "civil courage" bit, particularly in speaking against the government, unless we're willing to place the historical instances and events of other countries, including Germany, on record in hindsight as a comparison. I don't think that does much to further the discussion either.
    Last edited by RTK; 01-24-2009 at 08:05 PM.
    Example is better than precept.

  10. #10
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Henhouse is into the fox???

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    Their reasoning was MUCH better than that of the government (WHICH GOT RE-ELECTED after their blunder). They disagreed on several government claims that proved to be outright wrong.
    Being smarter and having better conclusions than the government is a good trait for experts.
    Really? Let's take a look. They said:

    * Saddam Hussein is a murderous despot, but no one has provided credible evidence that Iraq is cooperating with al Qaeda.
    * Even if Saddam Hussein acquired nuclear weapons, he could not use them without suffering massive U.S. or Israeli retaliation.
    * The first Bush administration did not try to conquer Iraq in 1991 because it understood that doing so could spread instability in the Middle East, threatening U.S. interests. This remains a valid concern today.
    * The United States would win a war against Iraq, but Iraq has military options—chemical and biological weapons, urban combat—that might impose significant costs on the invading forces and neighboring states.
    * Even if we win easily, we have no plausible exit strategy. Iraq is a deeply divided society that the United States would have to occupy and police for many years to create a viable state.
    * Al Qaeda poses a greater threat to the U.S. than does Iraq. War with Iraq will jeopardize the campaign against al Qaeda by diverting resources and attention from that campaign and by increasing anti-Americanism around the globe.


    Their first point is not relevant. I realize some in the Administration claimed there was or might be a connection but as AQ was only an ancillary concern in the decision to attack, the point is moot.

    The second point is also irrelevant. No one with any sense believe that Saddam could damage the US with nuclear weapons. I realize some politicians said that, the news media repeated it and that some believed it -- but, as I said, no one with any sense believed it.

    The third point I addressed above.

    Their fourth point is obviously erroneous as, I'm sure you recall, no such weapons were found in Iraq (so much for their great knowledge and prescience...). I know some politicians also believed that -- as did a number of Intel agencies (and not just US agencies as I'm sure you're aware) and many in the public as well as the academy. No matter, that had little to do with the 'why' and as for their concerns on the topic; (a) cost of war and (b) they were wrong.

    Their fifth point is valid

    Their final point is true but immaterial. Iraq was known by the policy makers to not be a threat (regardless of what was said publicly); in fact it was chosen because it wasn't much of a threat -- but mostly because of its geographic centrality in the Middle East, it's pariah status and the fact that an attack there would not disrupt ME oil supplies to China and India. The object was to follow the attack in Afghanistan (Message: Do not attack the US on its own soil) with an attack somewhere in the ME (Message: Stop screwing with US interests world wide and we will no longer accept your probes and fail to respond more forcefully than said probe). A lot of Europeans didn't understand that logic, so did not a lot of Americans who are Europhiles or something. Most in the ME understood it -- didn't like it but they understood it. You may have noticed little noise from Asia over that attack -- that's because most Asians understood it. Thus it looks like the Europeans were the ones lacking in understanding...

    So, the Academics you linked got one right out of six. That's not very good thinking in my estimation.
    The majority of Europeans was smarter than the Bush team, but since the U.S.Americans don't listen to Europeans they could at least choose their experts wisely.
    Presidents aren't supposed to be experts, they're supposed to make decisions based on the advice of experts. Bush got advice, made a decision and then some of the experts in uniform didn't do their job very well because they had not trained for it due to the failings of other experts in uniform over a 20 year period.

    The majority of Europeans were not 'smarter' -- they were going to object to anything Bush did after his comments about Kyoto and the ICC -- plus, they were looking at a potential multibillion Euro trade with the ME being disrupted and their own Muslim communities getting restive added to a fear of oil supply disruption (that didn't happen. Come to think of it, none of those fears materialized...). They very quickly forgot "We are all Americans." National interest will do that...
    They showed character when the vast majority of think tank talking heads swam with the current into the wrong direction.
    If you think so. My opinion is that they showed appalling ignorance and stuck their noses into a milieu they did not really understand. Lot of that going around...
    THAT is why they proved their value and deserve to be listened to next time they advise the public.
    If you believe five wrong calls out of six made are of value, we'll have to disagree on that. No one listened to them before and should a similar situation arise, due to their abject failure in the predictions to which you linked, no one is likely to pay any attention to them ever.
    Who wants to bet against me when I assert that Michael O'Hanlon* still gets more time on TV than 80% of the people (if not all) who signed the NYT ad in 2002 together?
    Not me, idiots abound in government and without. I personally plan to pay no attention to either a crowd of academics or to any Think Tank talking heads --which are effectively the same thing -- I can make my own decisions based on paying attention to what goes on in the world instead of following the crowd in lock step. I recommend that approach.
    Last edited by Ken White; 01-24-2009 at 10:03 PM. Reason: Typos

  11. #11
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default The Pottery Barn Fallacy

    The "international security affairs" experts accepted the "Pottery Barn Rule".

    Even if we win easily, we have no plausible exit strategy. Iraq is a deeply divided society that the United States would have to occupy and police for many years to create a viable state.
    The Bush administration, and its Democratic opposition, also bought the Pottery Barn Fallacy (see little Wiki article for quotes and sources).

    Ain't no such rule - at Pottery Barn or in I Law. However, that has been US national policy - seemingly accepted by most proponents and opponents of the Iraq intervention.

    One cannot really test whether the alternative (invade and leave - i.e., kick over the anthills and let the ants find their own new ground) would have been better. Whether you call it "alternate history" or "counterfactual history", assessing what might have been the "better" policy - as opposed to what was done - is very tricky.

    Unfortunately, Iraq was not as definitive as cardiac interventions. Been there twice in the last two decades (both were negative 90+% without intervention, positive 90+% with intervention). Both were quick ins and outs - the alternative of being on "life support" for a long time was not attractive. That's an easy decision.

    The same problem applies to counterfactual discussion of Vietnam.

    PS: Notice as I was writing that Ken has posted on the other points; but he notes that the fifth point (quoted above) is "valid". To me (IMO), it was not a valid point then (2003) or now. But, I concede that I am among only a small minority who supported the invasion, but not the occupation.

  12. #12
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    Fuchs,

    You are making a strange argument here. We should listen to the 33 "experts" who signed that ad? What makes you believe those experts will be of one mind regarding future policy decisions? What do we do when they disagree?

    Also, there is a difference between "listening" to experts and following their policy recommendations. Should they be listened to? Probably, if their arguments have merit. But we live in a democratic society and not a completely technocratic one, so blindly following some group of academics on policy matters is not wise, particularly if that group's track record is based being right once (and even that is undermined by Ken's post above). Never mind that those 33 being "right" on Iraq is predicated on the assumption that their preferred course of action is demonstrably superior to the one actually taken. People naturally assume that when a decision is made and something bad happens that the missed alternatives are superior. That is not the case. We don't know what would have happened if we didn't - things might turn out better in the long run, but they could just as easily have turned out worse. It's easy to come up with reasonable scenarios either way.

    Finally, there has been much academic work on "experts" and it turns out they are not very good at predicting. Some have even claimed that the more renowned an expert is, the worse their predictions become. There are many works on the subject besides Tetlock's, you should check them out.

  13. #13
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Thumbs up Three bags full..

    Yes sir, Yes Sir...

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
    The "international security affairs" experts accepted the "Pottery Barn Rule"...The Bush administration, and its Democratic opposition, also bought the Pottery Barn Fallacy (see little Wiki article for quotes and sources).
    Unfortunately. But I'm with you, I supported the attack as something that needed doing -- I did not think we would be dumb enough to stick around (that shows haw naive I am...) -- and groaned when in early May of 03 it became obvious that someone or something had changed the plan. Not for the better, said I...
    PS: Notice as I was writing that Ken has posted on the other points; but he notes that the fifth point (quoted above) is "valid". To me (IMO), it was not a valid point then (2003) or now. But, I concede that I am among only a small minority who supported the invasion, but not the occupation.
    I'm still with you and I could've cited your rationale herein but as we did for some strange reason decide to stay over my and your objection to doing so (FYI, we have some allies here and there who agree it was a bad decision... Followed by more bad decisions... ), I elected to be charitable or something.

    Anyway, I decided in making the comment above that since we had stayed, I'd give 'em the benefit of the doubt and credit for getting that one right.

    After all, if I had not done so, I'd have had to point out to Fuchs that they got all six wrong...
    Last edited by Ken White; 01-24-2009 at 10:48 PM.

  14. #14
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Ken, you look at the ad from the wrong angle.

    It was no study or intel paper.
    It was meant to counteract the pro-war propaganda of that time.
    As such it did address issues that were discussed in the public, using a consensus approach among the many people who signed it and refrained from engaging matters that were already too ingrained in the public opinion (CB).

    This 'meant for public discussion, no treatise' thing also covers the pottery barn thing. There was no space (and readers likely not patient enough) to discuss such things in detail, they mentioned how it would most likely be viewed and happen - and were right in that.

    It's all about context, as usual.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    The majority of Europeans were not 'smarter'
    Ken, I believe you underestimate an extremely powerful factor here; the societal commemoration of war, its wastefulness/destructiveness and the lessons drawn from it and incorporated into the societies.

    It would be surprising if the average European was smarter in terms of IQ than the U.S.Americans and intra-European differences in education disqualify the education criterion for smartness as well.
    I'm quite convinced that the European nations (some more than others) were and are smarter as societies than the U.S. in matters of war & peace due to much richer (worse) experiences. The result were different majorities and different institutional reactions.

    Besides that, almost all European countries had and have a popular majority against the Iraq War - usually for very different reasons than U.S.Americans like to cite to excuse themselves imho (this includes your ICC/Kyoto hint - I was in Germany in 2002/03 and never heard any such arguments as the U.S.Americans seem to believe to have been decisive - at all. Never. I've never seen/read an U.S.American who had a grasp of why Germans opposed the war.).

    Being right about something on such a scale (and there's no doubt that the Iraq War went terrible and has hurt the USA much more than benefited) is a strong argument for smarter opinion-finding in itself.



    By the way; I started this thread to hint subtly at the importance of learning from national mistakes.
    It's important whether there's something driving hawkish pundits into the media or whether voices of caution get heard as loudly.

    I don't have the impression that the USA has already learned from its mistake. It looks as if it is being treated as an aberration, a Neocon-only failure.


    It's basically a "We told you so" thing (that's what I held back initially).
    The problem is that even after being told about it and experiencing the consequences, it seems as if the USA would be all too interested in doing the same mistakes again - if only the military could promise to do a better job and deliver a clean result next time.

    That's what 'irritates' me about the efforts to improve COIN capabilities in the future and about the expectation that future wars will be small wars.

    The USA is extremely resilient - against some lessons.

  15. #15
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default We are both naifs

    But I'm with you, I supported the attack as something that needed doing -- I did not think we would be dumb enough to stick around (that shows haw naive I am...) -- and groaned when in early May of 03 it became obvious that someone or something had changed the plan.
    This discussion for me and my pool partner (the ret. E7) started about then and continued into the fall. By Dec 2003, I was saying "mission accomplished"; he felt that there was more wisdom in the National Command Authority than I did at that point.

    What we (E7 and I) did agree about was this: we have to deal with the situation we have, not the situation we'd like to have. As you have oft said, we all in this and in the same boat - even if we don't like the course it takes.

  16. #16
    Council Member Ron Humphrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    1,099

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post

    Being right about something on such a scale (and there's no doubt that the Iraq War went terrible and has hurt the USA much more than benefited) is a strong argument for smarter opinion-finding in itself.

    Are you absolutely sure about this, already?

    If so why.


    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    By the way; I started this thread to hint subtly at the importance of learning from national mistakes.
    It's important whether there's something driving hawkish pundits into the media or whether voices of caution get heard as loudly.

    I don't have the impression that the USA has already learned from its mistake. It looks as if it is being treated as an aberration, a Neocon-only failure.


    It's basically a "We told you so" thing (that's what I held back initially).
    The problem is that even after being told about it and experiencing the consequences, it seems as if the USA would be all too interested in doing the same mistakes again - if only the military could promise to do a better job and deliver a clean result next time.

    That's what 'irritates' me about the efforts to improve COIN capabilities in the future and about the expectation that future wars will be small wars.

    The USA is extremely resilient - against some lessons.
    While this is true in some contexts, surely you must understand how American's tend to weigh recommendations on warfare from those who quite often our under-cautious, overly brash selves have had to help dig out of some of the very same situations they warn against.

    Not to mention we specialize in not even listening to ourselves if we don't like what we're hearing.

    So it's nothing personal just sometimes unfortunately costly


    Besides like others have pointed out, it's not that academic's shouldn't be listened to, it's just that as with anyone else anything they considered must be weighed against that which they for whatever reason choose not to consider.
    Any man can destroy that which is around him, The rare man is he who can find beauty even in the darkest hours

    Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur

  17. #17
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Humphrey View Post
    While this is true in some contexts, surely you must understand how American's tend to weigh recommendations on warfare from those who quite often our under-cautious, overly brash selves have had to help dig out of some of the very same situations they warn against.
    I don't understand.

  18. #18
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Experience

    Fuchs,

    I came into this world near the start of WWII for us (Aug 1942), which means I was conceived about the time of Pearl. That was my dad's war. By the time I was 2+, I came off with what I wanted to do - and that was to kill Germans. No surprise there, since that's what my dad was tasked to do - even though he had no love for Mr. Roosevelt's war. What was more ironic was that we lived in the same house as a German-American family, whose hero was Dwight D. Eisenhower - also tasked with killing Germans.

    Since WWII, Germany and Europe have been spared from the experiences of large wars. The US hasn't - and we are well aware of our 100k+ butcher's bill for Korea and Vietnam. Those were part of the Cold War which I am happy ended as it did under Mr. Reagan.

    After that the US had two choices: Decompression or the New World Order. My choice was decompression (sit back for a decade or so, and see what happens). The national policy became the New World Order in one form or another. That is the situation we have had to deal with - and I expect will continue to have to deal with.

    My suggestion (which works in the hot button area of religion) is to witness your beliefs and opinions about what should be. Please do not tell me what my religion is (cuz you really can't know that) - also let's leave pejoratives out of it - applies to everyone, not just you.

    PS: I got over my killing Germans thing after my dad got back and told me what war was really about.

  19. #19
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    By the way; I started this thread to hint subtly at the importance of learning from national mistakes.
    It's important whether there's something driving hawkish pundits into the media or whether voices of caution get heard as loudly.
    Considering the full effects of the Iraq invasion won't be known for some time, I'd say it premature to label it as a mistake. And I say this as someone who didn't believe the invasion was a necessary step at that time, although given Saddam's history of miscaluation and penchant for attacking neighbors, I thought that a reckoning with his regime was probably inevitable. And if Saddam unexpectedly died, then the US probably would have intervened anyway. CENTCOM drew up plans for just such a contingency in the 1990's.

    Furthermore, it seems to me that many of those who've been consistently calling the invasion a national mistake make two errors:

    1. They conflate the decision and rationale for the invasion with the poor execution afterward. The real national mistake was the failure to adequately plan for and prepare for the consequences of the invasion. If I decide to drive to grandma's house for Christmas, do I call that decision a mistake when I fail to fill up the tank and run out of gas? No.

    2. They have little sense of history and make assumptions that the recent past will inevitably play out into the future. We saw a lot of this when things were at their worst in 2006 and "experts" were declaring the occupation a complete loss with no possibility of a good outcome. Those experts are silent now that a better outcome appears possible (though far from assured).

    In short, it's going to take a long time to gauge whether or not OIF was worth the many sacrifices made by Americans, Iraqi's and others in the end. Anyone who claims to definitively know one way or another is probably selling an agenda.

  20. #20
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    @jmm99:

    Tolerance is fine, but don't be surprised if very different attitudes lead to a separation. The USA could break NATO with its style - and would be pretty alone afterward. It's open for debate whether the British would stick to the USA in such a case.


    @Entropy:

    "They conflate the decision and rationale for the invasion with the poor execution afterward."

    That's a key quote that shows that you don't use the European point of view.

    It's not about whether the war is clean or dirty, successful or failure.
    The Iraq invasion was pretty much a crime by European standards (and international law, but that's another story).
    The act itself was not justified, not legal, an extremely poor tool for the purpose and overall it wasn't more reasonable than a random action.

Similar Threads

  1. Vietnam collection (lessons plus)
    By SWJED in forum Training & Education
    Replies: 140
    Last Post: 06-27-2014, 04:40 AM
  2. Social Scientists Work Being Involuntarily Classified
    By Abu Suleyman in forum Social Sciences, Moral, and Religious
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 07-11-2008, 06:37 PM
  3. The Dangerous Militarisation of Anthropology
    By SWJED in forum Social Sciences, Moral, and Religious
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 06-26-2007, 06:16 PM
  4. Thoughts?
    By LawVol in forum US Policy, Interest, and Endgame
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 04-22-2007, 01:38 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •