3 ms·

OK, what is the implication here? That a cabal of government officials would deliberately start a war under false pretenses, costing trillions of dollars and th

by chroma 11y ago

OK, what is the implication here? That a cabal of government officials would deliberately start a war under false pretenses, costing trillions of dollars and thousands of their own countrymen's lives... for what? Profit? They could rake in far more by tacking a couple riders on popular bills. It's unwise to caricature your opponents as evil or stupid. Not only is it an impediment to understanding them, but it makes any sort of dialogue impossible.

api 11y ago
So given that torture is objectively not reliable for obtaining truthful evidence, what is a good non evil non stupid explanation? I consider torture itself evil under all but the most extreme and rare ticking time bomb scenarios. Little to none of the enhanced interrogation stuff I've read about fits into that category. So that leaves the question of whether the motives are also evil or just stupid. Doing something that you know doesn't work on the theory it will intimidate is stupid, especially with an enemy that comes from an honor culture that relishes conflict and values martyrdom. Failing to evaluate your techniques for actual success rate is stupid. And so on...
CamperBob2 11y ago
I assume this is the dryest sarcasm this side of a Martian sand dune.
MaysonL 11y ago
So for what reason did they?
- JabavuAdams 11y ago
  Fear, greed, and stupidity.
jMyles 11y ago
> That a cabal of government officials would deliberately start a war under false pretenses, costing trillions of dollars and thousands of their own countrymen's lives... for what? Profit? ....yyyes? precisely that? Or are you being super sarcastic? Or something?
thephyber 11y ago
What if it's not for "profit", but for the perceived long-term national security interest of the US? The kind of "national security" which doesn't directly protect us from attack, but rather prevents us from having to fight future wars when the nation is energy-starved. Consider this video featuring Retired General Wesley Clark talking about plans in the Pentagon (circa 2001) to regime change 7 Middle Eastern countries in 5 years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw Assuming there is any truth to this claim (and I'm suspicious because we can't independently verify the claims), the implication is that the US military investigated and drew up plans to free the countries and make their oil available to western nations in order to fuel future economic growth (I'm taking liberties and drawing inference from previous US intervention in Middle Eastern foreign policy). It's not "profit", but it's the long term "security" (which can be extremely subjective) of the US.

by chroma 11y ago

api 11y ago

So given that torture is objectively not reliable for obtaining truthful evidence, what is a good non evil non stupid explanation? I consider torture itself evil under all but the most extreme and rare ticking time bomb scenarios. Little to none of the enhanced interrogation stuff I've read about fits into that category. So that leaves the question of whether the motives are also evil or just stupid. Doing something that you know doesn't work on the theory it will intimidate is stupid, especially with an enemy that comes from an honor culture that relishes conflict and values martyrdom. Failing to evaluate your techniques for actual success rate is stupid. And so on...

CamperBob2 11y ago

I assume this is the dryest sarcasm this side of a Martian sand dune.

MaysonL 11y ago

So for what reason did they?

JabavuAdams 11y ago
Fear, greed, and stupidity.

jMyles 11y ago

> That a cabal of government officials would deliberately start a war under false pretenses, costing trillions of dollars and thousands of their own countrymen's lives... for what? Profit? ....yyyes? precisely that? Or are you being super sarcastic? Or something?

thephyber 11y ago

What if it's not for "profit", but for the perceived long-term national security interest of the US? The kind of "national security" which doesn't directly protect us from attack, but rather prevents us from having to fight future wars when the nation is energy-starved. Consider this video featuring Retired General Wesley Clark talking about plans in the Pentagon (circa 2001) to regime change 7 Middle Eastern countries in 5 years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw Assuming there is any truth to this claim (and I'm suspicious because we can't independently verify the claims), the implication is that the US military investigated and drew up plans to free the countries and make their oil available to western nations in order to fuel future economic growth (I'm taking liberties and drawing inference from previous US intervention in Middle Eastern foreign policy). It's not "profit", but it's the long term "security" (which can be extremely subjective) of the US.