4 ms·

I know quite a few people in the special forces on the ground all over the middle east and you'd surprised how many adamently believe that if Americans did inde

I know quite a few people in the special forces on the ground all over the middle east and you'd surprised how many adamently believe that if Americans did indeed know "the truth", we would already be at war with half of the middle east and possibly Russia. I think assuming that the American public has an aversion to war is a dangerous one. Remember that full transparency is a double edged sword. One the one hand people learn about the innocent loss of life, on the other, people may learn just how dangerous and determined the forces against "us" are. That could very well result in a cause to action. We invaded two nations that presumably had nothing to do with 9/11 over 9/11. Take a moment to think about the potential ramifications of a population that is fully aware of the extent powerful movements within Iran, China, Russia, Vemezuela, Pakistan and a host of other countries go to undermine our national security and economic stability. In case you didnt know, the US is already fighting covert wars on all of those fronts (you can google around for articles on this stuff, they come out all the time)

justinweiss 16y ago
Ok. But if that's what's actually happening, we need to have that conversation. Keeping these things secret will lead to nothing but waste, corruption, and misunderstanding.
- oogoog 16y ago
  I'm not sure how that solves the op's problem. The point is democracies and crowds often make bad decisions based on popularity, status, pride, anger, ignorance, whats good for the majority (at the expense of a minority), etc. Heh, not that I have a solution. I'm just saying the OP has a valid point and crowd rule isn't necessarily going to lead to the best solution.
barrkel 16y ago
Indeed, and these "hikers" and "tourists" keep on getting caught.
enko 16y ago
> if Americans did indeed know "the truth", we would already be at war with half of the middle east and possibly Russia That's a pretty big claim. Elaborate? What's this big truth? Not that America could possibly win such a war.. > assuming that the American public has an aversion to war is a dangerous one I'd wager that the American public would have quite a healthy aversion to total war against a serious opponent, should they ever experience it. Adventures to these pathetic third world countries don't count. The day America invades a country with ICBMs is the day an awful lot of US citizens become a lot less hawkish.

justinweiss 16y ago

Ok. But if that's what's actually happening, we need to have that conversation. Keeping these things secret will lead to nothing but waste, corruption, and misunderstanding.

oogoog 16y ago
I'm not sure how that solves the op's problem. The point is democracies and crowds often make bad decisions based on popularity, status, pride, anger, ignorance, whats good for the majority (at the expense of a minority), etc. Heh, not that I have a solution. I'm just saying the OP has a valid point and crowd rule isn't necessarily going to lead to the best solution.

barrkel 16y ago

Indeed, and these "hikers" and "tourists" keep on getting caught.

enko 16y ago

> if Americans did indeed know "the truth", we would already be at war with half of the middle east and possibly Russia That's a pretty big claim. Elaborate? What's this big truth? Not that America could possibly win such a war.. > assuming that the American public has an aversion to war is a dangerous one I'd wager that the American public would have quite a healthy aversion to total war against a serious opponent, should they ever experience it. Adventures to these pathetic third world countries don't count. The day America invades a country with ICBMs is the day an awful lot of US citizens become a lot less hawkish.