They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
6/10.

But taking your post seriously (never a good idea ) that bit of folk wisdom applies entirely too well to parts of this administration. A little knowledge rather than enough knowledge.

Iraq would be much better off today if Powell was telling the truth about us having good intelligence (enough knowledge) of the internal state of Iraq before we invaded. With enough knowledge:

Either we would not have invaded, or we would have gone in with enough troops to control the aftermath, with realistic plans for rebuilding, and with at least a vague sense of how internally divided the country really was.

Initial costs would have been much higher, but the long term cost and number of lives lost would have been much lower.

Pure speculation. More soldiers on the ground would also mean more targets. And having knowledge of the "internal state of Iraq" whatever that's supposed to mean, doesn't mean anything any different from what we have today would have been prevented.

As far as plans for rebuilding, most in here don't want to discuss the rebuilding that going on in Iraq because doing so would be acknowledging progress, and those same people want to deny that there's any progress in Iraq, hence it's a verboten subject. If anyone even dares to create such a thread, a line of the anti-war crew steps up with pants lowered to take a giant squat on it.

We have had sucesses in the past, i.e., Japan and Germany, but we have had utter failures, too. Afghanistan (after their war with USSR) is a perfect example, and a more recent one at that. And the effects were world-changing, I might add.

Afghanistan, after the war with the USSR, was not seen to be a threat. Their only mistake was harboring OBL. Afghanistan itself was no real big deal until they refused to turn OBL over. Not to mention that US support of the Muj through Pakistan was seen as a battle against communism and not Islamic fundamentalism. At the time, Islamicism was manageable.

Unfortunately, OBL decided to step up the threat level drastically.

It was seen, clear as day, to become a brutal Theocracy, one of which was going to harbor and assist terrorists that were a threat to ME stability. We had a chance to prevent that from happening, and our ego got caught in the way. Afghanistan was a threat not when OBL stepped foot there, but before that, when Ayman al-Zawahiri set up camp there. I don't know why people overlook him. He and Kutb were a menace to the ME success. And our failure to prevent the regime in Afghanistan from taking control was certainly a huge mistake we, and the rest of the world, are paying for today, quite dearly.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
What's needed are some old-school experts who follow every opinion with "... but on the other hand...."

Then nothing would get done and everything would be fine.

Looks like someone has turned to anarchism. :thumbsup:

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
What's needed are some old-school experts who follow every opinion with "... but on the other hand...."

Then nothing would get done and everything would be fine.

I like this train of thought. A do nothing government is a tolerable government. Every read Glory Road by Heinlein?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Hey Chicken, I don't mean to imply by asking that you have a little knowledge or anything, but do you think everything in Iraq is coming up roses? I, myself, am perfectly willing to entertain that some good is happening. In fact, l am so lacking in knowledge that I have no idea how things will turn out. I can't see, therefore, how you would know any more than me about a future that is malleable and not yet written.

And here we have example B of another type of response. It's a shift to absolutism, a question that omits gray, as if someone believes there is progress it automatically translates into believing everything is rosey and hunky-dory. As arguments go, it's a type of fallacy.

How do I know about the future? I don't, because I surely have just as little knowledge as you, Moonie. But the future is built on the past and we do have a record of the past. The only area we really differ in is interpretation of that past.

If you look carefully you will I think see that I didn't shift of absolutism, but asked if you did. And if you look at our history in Iraq, it strikes me as f@cked up from day one, so what history is it to which you refer?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
See, I don't know if I buy that whole "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" argument. Sure, not know what you are doing is a bad thing, but in my experience, people with a little knowledge of a topic generally seem to understand how much they don't know, and generally look towards experts to fill in the blanks. The really dangerous folks are the people who don't even have the faintest idea of what the hell they are talking about, they aren't so much ignorant as they are stupid. They don't even know enough to realize they are ignorant, and they certainly don't realize they would be better off finding things out from people who DO understand the topic. This kind of total lack of understanding gives us people who think better security is the same thing as more police power, or the argument that intelligent design belongs in the science classroom.

It's true, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing...but the real danger is from a lot of stupidity. The danger doesn't come from being lost in the weeds, it comes from not knowing it.

Well that I suppose is a novel way to look at it, but I thought Bush was being pretty smart in appointing dumb asses to tun the country, cause if a little knowledge is dangerous just imagine the catastrophe of a lot.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: MadRat
You have to read his sig and past 24206 posts to understand.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: bamacre
It was seen, clear as day, to become a brutal Theocracy, one of which was going to harbor and assist terrorists that were a threat to ME stability. We had a chance to prevent that from happening, and our ego got caught in the way. Afghanistan was a threat not when OBL stepped foot there, but before that, when Ayman al-Zawahiri set up camp there. I don't know why people overlook him. He and Kutb were a menace to the ME success. And our failure to prevent the regime in Afghanistan from taking control was certainly a huge mistake we, and the rest of the world, are paying for today, quite dearly.

So Clinton should have done something about Afghanistan?

Afghanistan itself was considered inconsequential once the war with the USSR was finished. Nor would have been a popular move with the public to subversively support the Muj in Afghanistan until the USSR was defeated, then turn around and begin a war with them ourselves. At the time the cold war was winding down (Which is only apparent through the lens of history) and the concern was communism, not Islamic theocracies. At the time Islamic theocracies were considered the lesser of the two evils.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: bamacre
It was seen, clear as day, to become a brutal Theocracy, one of which was going to harbor and assist terrorists that were a threat to ME stability. We had a chance to prevent that from happening, and our ego got caught in the way. Afghanistan was a threat not when OBL stepped foot there, but before that, when Ayman al-Zawahiri set up camp there. I don't know why people overlook him. He and Kutb were a menace to the ME success. And our failure to prevent the regime in Afghanistan from taking control was certainly a huge mistake we, and the rest of the world, are paying for today, quite dearly.

So Clinton should have done something about Afghanistan?

Afghanistan itself was considered inconsequential once the war with the USSR was finished. Nor would have been a popular move with the public to subversively support the Muj in Afghanistan until the USSR was defeated, then turn around and begin a war with them ourselves. At the time the cold war was winding down (Which is only apparent through the lens of history) and the concern was communism, not Islamic theocracies. At the time Islamic theocracies were considered the lesser of the two evils.

I said absolutley zero about Clinton, I cannot fathom where he would fit in this conversation.

It was a cold hard fact, and the USSR knew it, and we knew it, that once the USSR left Afghanistan, and unless we prevented it, Afghanistan would turn into a terrorist-loving and brutal Theocratic regime, made up of those who were already guilty of wreaking havoc across the ME, including Egypt where the US had already set up financial interests and relations.

No, sir, I am not talking about Clinton, I am talking about PNAC. A just lovely group who has influenced and fvcked up our foreign policy ever since they have gained politcal power.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: bamacre
It was seen, clear as day, to become a brutal Theocracy, one of which was going to harbor and assist terrorists that were a threat to ME stability. We had a chance to prevent that from happening, and our ego got caught in the way. Afghanistan was a threat not when OBL stepped foot there, but before that, when Ayman al-Zawahiri set up camp there. I don't know why people overlook him. He and Kutb were a menace to the ME success. And our failure to prevent the regime in Afghanistan from taking control was certainly a huge mistake we, and the rest of the world, are paying for today, quite dearly.

So Clinton should have done something about Afghanistan?

Afghanistan itself was considered inconsequential once the war with the USSR was finished. Nor would have been a popular move with the public to subversively support the Muj in Afghanistan until the USSR was defeated, then turn around and begin a war with them ourselves. At the time the cold war was winding down (Which is only apparent through the lens of history) and the concern was communism, not Islamic theocracies. At the time Islamic theocracies were considered the lesser of the two evils.

I said absolutley zero about Clinton, I cannot fathom where he would fit in this conversation.

How can you not fathom that? The Taliban came to power in 1996. You are claiming it was a US failure to prevent the regime from taking control, so it would have been on Clinton's shoulders to prevent that takeover and intervene in the civil war prior to the Taliban's ascent.

It was a cold hard fact, and the USSR knew it, and we knew it, that once the USSR left Afghanistan, and unless we prevented it, Afghanistan would turn into a terrorist-loving and brutal Theocratic regime, made up of those who were already guilty of wreaking havoc across the ME, including Egypt where the US had already set up financial interests and relations.

No, sir, I am not talking about Clinton, I am talking about PNAC. A just lovely group who has influenced and fvcked up our foreign policy ever since they have gained politcal power.

Yeah, things were all hunky-dory prior to the neocons. :roll:

If you want to place blame, blame Jimmy Carter, that war-loving neocon (/sarcasm). Carter was the one that began secretly providing aid to the Muj in Afghanistan before the Soviets even invaded.

 

[bamacre]

TLC, we can agree to disagree on Afghanistan, and that is getting is off-topic anyways, so I would just like to see you answer Moonbeam's question...

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
And if you look at our history in Iraq, it strikes me as f@cked up from day one, so what history is it to which you refer?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Hey Chicken, I don't mean to imply by asking that you have a little knowledge or anything, but do you think everything in Iraq is coming up roses? I, myself, am perfectly willing to entertain that some good is happening. In fact, l am so lacking in knowledge that I have no idea how things will turn out. I can't see, therefore, how you would know any more than me about a future that is malleable and not yet written.

And here we have example B of another type of response. It's a shift to absolutism, a question that omits gray, as if someone believes there is progress it automatically translates into believing everything is rosey and hunky-dory. As arguments go, it's a type of fallacy.

How do I know about the future? I don't, because I surely have just as little knowledge as you, Moonie. But the future is built on the past and we do have a record of the past. The only area we really differ in is interpretation of that past.

If you look carefully you will I think see that I didn't shift of absolutism, but asked if you did. And if you look at our history in Iraq, it strikes me as f@cked up from day one, so what history is it to which you refer?

It certainly couldn't be the history of the Brits in Iraq. If Bush and his PNAC masters had bothered to investigate that fiasco they wouldn't have dared invade Iraq -- which just about destroys the chicken's nonsense about Iraq's future being built on history.

 

[BBond]

As for Clinton being responsible for the rise of the Taliban -- the chicken again ignores history. Specifically, the history of Reagan/Bush propelling people like Georgie's buddy Osama through their ridiculous strategy of the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Is Osama still Georgie's friend, chicken?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: BBond
As for Clinton being responsible for the rise of the Taliban -- the chicken again ignores history.

No, BBond. You are ignoring your lack of reading comprehension. I never claimed Clinton was responsible. Try reading it again, slowly, and you just might figure it out.

Specifically, the history of Reagan/Bush propelling people like Georgie's buddy Osama through their ridiculous strategy of the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Is Osama still Georgie's friend, chicken?

Why don't you call one of your terrorist buddies and ask them?

I mean, if you can make idiotic statements and assumptions loaded with hyperbole, it obviously opens the door for people to respond to you in kind.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond
As for Clinton being responsible for the rise of the Taliban -- the chicken again ignores history.

No, BBond. You are ignoring your lack of reading comprehension. I never claimed Clinton was responsible. Try reading it again, slowly, and you just might figure it out.

Specifically, the history of Reagan/Bush propelling people like Georgie's buddy Osama through their ridiculous strategy of the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Is Osama still Georgie's friend, chicken?

Why don't you call one of your terrorist buddies and ask them?

I mean, if you can make idiotic statements and assumptions loaded with hyperbole, it obviously opens the door for people to respond to you in kind.

Why pick the most agressive post to respond to when you have somebody intelligent like me to talk to who asked you a serious question? Were you looking for a fight?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond
As for Clinton being responsible for the rise of the Taliban -- the chicken again ignores history.

No, BBond. You are ignoring your lack of reading comprehension. I never claimed Clinton was responsible. Try reading it again, slowly, and you just might figure it out.

Specifically, the history of Reagan/Bush propelling people like Georgie's buddy Osama through their ridiculous strategy of the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Is Osama still Georgie's friend, chicken?

Why don't you call one of your terrorist buddies and ask them?

I mean, if you can make idiotic statements and assumptions loaded with hyperbole, it obviously opens the door for people to respond to you in kind.

Why pick the most agressive post to respond to when you have somebody intelligent like me to talk to who asked you a serious question? Were you looking for a fight?

I felt like shooting at the easier target and BBond is usually a point-blank bulls-eye.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Hey Chicken, I don't mean to imply by asking that you have a little knowledge or anything, but do you think everything in Iraq is coming up roses? I, myself, am perfectly willing to entertain that some good is happening. In fact, l am so lacking in knowledge that I have no idea how things will turn out. I can't see, therefore, how you would know any more than me about a future that is malleable and not yet written.

And here we have example B of another type of response. It's a shift to absolutism, a question that omits gray, as if someone believes there is progress it automatically translates into believing everything is rosey and hunky-dory. As arguments go, it's a type of fallacy.

How do I know about the future? I don't, because I surely have just as little knowledge as you, Moonie. But the future is built on the past and we do have a record of the past. The only area we really differ in is interpretation of that past.

Puleeze! Why do you think the "past" is relevant to ANYTHING going on in Iraq? Think of that famous line used in prospectuses: "Past performance is not a guarantee of future success."

When it comes to "nation building", for which (historically speaking) you would be hard pressed to find even one example REMOTELY comparable to Iraq, history becomes doubly meaningless.

To me, Iraq is a gigantic random walk experiment. It is beyond the control of the U.S. It is beyond the control of Iraqis. It is a hurricane moving hither and thither, and the "meteorologists" haven't the foggiest notion what wild path it will follow.

About all I'm reasonably sure of is that the more we stir the pot in Iraq, the more unstable it will be. I think the best policy is probably to just let Iraq do its thing. find its own path, and wherever it settles down, we (the U.S.) try to make the best of what will certainly be a pretty horrible situation.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Hey Chicken, I don't mean to imply by asking that you have a little knowledge or anything, but do you think everything in Iraq is coming up roses? I, myself, am perfectly willing to entertain that some good is happening. In fact, l am so lacking in knowledge that I have no idea how things will turn out. I can't see, therefore, how you would know any more than me about a future that is malleable and not yet written.

And here we have example B of another type of response. It's a shift to absolutism, a question that omits gray, as if someone believes there is progress it automatically translates into believing everything is rosey and hunky-dory. As arguments go, it's a type of fallacy.

How do I know about the future? I don't, because I surely have just as little knowledge as you, Moonie. But the future is built on the past and we do have a record of the past. The only area we really differ in is interpretation of that past.

Puleeze! Why do you think the "past" is relevant to ANYTHING going on in Iraq? Think of that famous line used in prospectuses: "Past performance is not a guarantee of future success."

When it comes to "nation building", for which (historically speaking) you would be hard pressed to find even one example REMOTELY comparable to Iraq, history becomes doubly meaningless.

To me, Iraq is a gigantic random walk experiment. It is beyond the control of the U.S. It is beyond the control of Iraqis. It is a hurricane moving hither and thither, and the "meteorologists" haven't the foggiest notion what wild path it will follow.

About all I'm reasonably sure of is that the more we stir the pot in Iraq, the more unstable it will be. I think the best policy is probably to just let Iraq do its thing. find its own path, and wherever it settles down, we (the U.S.) try to make the best of what will certainly be a pretty horrible situation.

LOL. You're comparing countries to investments while you go on to claim that there's nothing in the past to compare to Iraq?

And the same people who would claim there's absolutely no comparison between rebuilding Germany and Japan, two widely disparate cultures, won't hesitate to compare Iraq to the quagmire that was Vietnam, while disregarding the drastic differences between the two.

So we both pick and choose, don't we? And the biggest glaring difference brought up concerning Iraq is the insurgency, as if it's unheard of. Look around at the Islamic countries in this world. How many of them have had their governments in place for years and yet still have an active and hostile rebellious element present in their country. I don't know the exact number, but there's a hell of a lot. So why is Iraq any different than other Islamic countries. It goes with the Islamic territory. Most governments brutally repress that rebellion. It's time to attempt to break that cycle and show these folks they can participate in government instead of being abused by it. If we don't then nothing is going to change in Islamic countries for deceades to come and we'll be stuck with the same and growing problem that took down the WTC.

 

[CaptnKirk]

They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing

. . . and Bush has as little information as anyone . . . maybe less.

I'm pretty sure that I have forgotten more than Bush has ever learned.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Hey Chicken, I don't mean to imply by asking that you have a little knowledge or anything, but do you think everything in Iraq is coming up roses? I, myself, am perfectly willing to entertain that some good is happening. In fact, l am so lacking in knowledge that I have no idea how things will turn out. I can't see, therefore, how you would know any more than me about a future that is malleable and not yet written.

And here we have example B of another type of response. It's a shift to absolutism, a question that omits gray, as if someone believes there is progress it automatically translates into believing everything is rosey and hunky-dory. As arguments go, it's a type of fallacy.

How do I know about the future? I don't, because I surely have just as little knowledge as you, Moonie. But the future is built on the past and we do have a record of the past. The only area we really differ in is interpretation of that past.

Puleeze! Why do you think the "past" is relevant to ANYTHING going on in Iraq? Think of that famous line used in prospectuses: "Past performance is not a guarantee of future success."

When it comes to "nation building", for which (historically speaking) you would be hard pressed to find even one example REMOTELY comparable to Iraq, history becomes doubly meaningless.

To me, Iraq is a gigantic random walk experiment. It is beyond the control of the U.S. It is beyond the control of Iraqis. It is a hurricane moving hither and thither, and the "meteorologists" haven't the foggiest notion what wild path it will follow.

About all I'm reasonably sure of is that the more we stir the pot in Iraq, the more unstable it will be. I think the best policy is probably to just let Iraq do its thing. find its own path, and wherever it settles down, we (the U.S.) try to make the best of what will certainly be a pretty horrible situation.

LOL. You're comparing countries to investments while you go on to claim that there's nothing in the past to compare to Iraq?

And the same people who would claim there's absolutely no comparison between rebuilding Germany and Japan, two widely disparate cultures, won't hesitate to compare Iraq to the quagmire that was Vietnam, while disregarding the drastic differences between the two.

So we both pick and choose, don't we? And the biggest glaring difference brought up concerning Iraq is the insurgency, as if it's unheard of. Look around at the Islamic countries in this world. How many of them have had their governments in place for years and yet still have an active and hostile rebellious element present in their country. I don't know the exact number, but there's a hell of a lot. So why is Iraq any different than other Islamic countries. It goes with the Islamic territory. Most governments brutally repress that rebellion. It's time to attempt to break that cycle and show these folks they can participate in government instead of being abused by it. If we don't then nothing is going to change in Islamic countries for deceades to come and we'll be stuck with the same and growing problem that took down the WTC.

You haven't heard (or read) ME comparing Iraq to Vietnam. So don't you dare engage in your typical contemptible rhetorical device of putting words in people's mouths and then arguing against them.

I repeat: History is doubly useless when it comes to Iraq: There's no historical precident and even if there were, historical precidents are worth sh1t.

Iraq is wildly unstable. We're going to pull out sooner or later, and I'd much prefer sooner (and several hundred billion dollar's richer) than later. Does anybody remotely believe that another year or two is going to bring freedom and stability to Iraq? It's not "if" we pull out, it's "when". And when that pull out occurs, the insurgency will be there, just as it is now. Why waste more American lives and dollars on what is essentially a delaying action. Stop delaying, let Iraq go down the crapper (or wherever it's going to go), and deal with it.