4 ms·

People do this all the time when they don't want to believe. I'm fine with the prospect of China hacking the US. It fits in just fine with my world view. Howev

People do this all the time when they don't want to believe. I'm fine with the prospect of China hacking the US. It fits in just fine with my world view. However, there's also the sinking of the Maine, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and Iraqi WMD. Skepticism is called for.

mc32 8y ago
That skepticism is earned indeed. But despite that people will believe something along these lines (WMD[1], Sony Hack, Russia, etc.) if it aligns with their political view. And if it doesn't then they're even more skeptical than is healthy. [1]Although to be fair, Saddam _wanted_ his neighbors to believe he had WMDs. It was a sort of a reverse 'boy who cried wolf' and then not wanting to lose face kept playing games (which fooled many to believe more than they should have with flimsy independent evidence that he had WMDs (including many in the opposition parties).
- freeflight 8y ago
  To be fair: Even the responsible UN weapons inspector, Scott Ritter [0] quite bluntly stated there was no evidence at all for the Iraqi WMD program. Not that anybody in the Bush administration would have cared, everybody there was well aware of this fact, that's also the reason why they tried to play up the fictitious "Saddam al-Qaeda" link [1] for a while and why the whole WMD thing just became a joke to them a mere year after the invasion [2]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_li... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O35NA6TywAg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O35NA6TywAg
  - mc32 8y ago
    That whole thing was a fiasco and a stupid mistake or undertaking. It really was a terrible thing to do (there was reason to unseat Saddam, but not at the cost it would take). However, it would be a mistake to think this was only a Bush thing. This was broadly bipartisan in the US. It was neoliberal politics and war hawks who thought they could shape the world in their neoliberal view. With the Soviets out of the way, they thought they could help make the rest of the world more like western democracies (obvs through force if necessary) We saw a continuation with the Arab spring enthusiasm which turned horribly wrong as well.
    - freeflight 8y ago
      There was a reason to unseat Saddam? What reason would that have been? Him belonging to the "axis of evil"? By that same logic, would you also be okay with invading Iran? Or are you fine with some good old covert regime-change action like it's been going on in Syria? The US had no justification for doing what it did in Iraq, literally the whole world said "No" resulting in the biggest global peace protests in human history, the UN said "No", yet the US went straight ahead with it's "coalition of the willing". Framing this like the "US just wanted to spread democracy out of the goodness of her heart" is not only dishonest, it's extremely cynical. The US isn't some "nice good guy", it didn't go into Iraq because it cared so deeply about the Iraqi people, it went in there for its own geopolitical interests.
      - mc32 8y ago
        I didn't say I thought the hawks were nice. I'm saying what they wanted to believe they were doing. Saddam was a dictator and an all around bad guy [he gassed, he killed indiscriminately], he also, like Marshall Tito, kept a lid on the pressure cooker. But, yes, there was reason to get rid of him. If I take your claim at face value, Democrats claiming Trump should be impeached is the height of folly because they have no reason to want to unseat him.
        acct1771 8y ago
        They're the height of folly because these criminals aren't ever held responsible at that level, not because they're wrong.
        freeflight 8y ago
        Sure enough, he gassed, while the CIA gave him a hand with that when he gassed Iranians [0]. Just like Syria used to be an "ally in the war on terror" when Assad tortured terrorist suspects for the US, only to then turn around and use said torture as a pretext for "regime change actions" [1]. This is a common theme with US foreign policy, not just in the MENA region, and it's a major factor for the US not only losing international goodwill but also stirring up anti-US sentiments because most rational people see it for what it is: Hypocrisy You also don't need to take any of my "claims" at face value, they've been considered established facts since the very beginning [2], particularly outside of the US [3]. Only in the Anglo-Saxon sphere was there any support for the invasion and most of that support was fabricated through influencing the narrative in the media [4]. The fact that you are still able to deny this, over a decade after, with all of its consequences undeniably impacting the world to this day, speaks bounds and volumes about the levels of indoctrination that happened back then. What happened in Iraq was one of the greatest injustices in modern history and a major factor for radicalizing moderate Muslims, the "War on Terror" did nothing but create more terror. Exactly how Osama wanted 9/11 to play out, just like it kicked off massive refugee streams into Europe, lasting to this day. Yet here you are, still trying to justify it like it's been the most normal thing in the world. [0] https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-pro... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/19/syria-us-ally-human-rights https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/19/syria-... [2] https://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html https://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html [3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq [4] https://vimeo.com/67739294 https://vimeo.com/67739294

mc32 8y ago

That skepticism is earned indeed. But despite that people will believe something along these lines (WMD[1], Sony Hack, Russia, etc.) if it aligns with their political view. And if it doesn't then they're even more skeptical than is healthy. [1]Although to be fair, Saddam _wanted_ his neighbors to believe he had WMDs. It was a sort of a reverse 'boy who cried wolf' and then not wanting to lose face kept playing games (which fooled many to believe more than they should have with flimsy independent evidence that he had WMDs (including many in the opposition parties).

freeflight 8y ago
To be fair: Even the responsible UN weapons inspector, Scott Ritter [0] quite bluntly stated there was no evidence at all for the Iraqi WMD program. Not that anybody in the Bush administration would have cared, everybody there was well aware of this fact, that's also the reason why they tried to play up the fictitious "Saddam al-Qaeda" link [1] for a while and why the whole WMD thing just became a joke to them a mere year after the invasion [2]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_li... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O35NA6TywAg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O35NA6TywAg
- mc32 8y ago
  That whole thing was a fiasco and a stupid mistake or undertaking. It really was a terrible thing to do (there was reason to unseat Saddam, but not at the cost it would take). However, it would be a mistake to think this was only a Bush thing. This was broadly bipartisan in the US. It was neoliberal politics and war hawks who thought they could shape the world in their neoliberal view. With the Soviets out of the way, they thought they could help make the rest of the world more like western democracies (obvs through force if necessary) We saw a continuation with the Arab spring enthusiasm which turned horribly wrong as well.
  - freeflight 8y ago
    There was a reason to unseat Saddam? What reason would that have been? Him belonging to the "axis of evil"? By that same logic, would you also be okay with invading Iran? Or are you fine with some good old covert regime-change action like it's been going on in Syria? The US had no justification for doing what it did in Iraq, literally the whole world said "No" resulting in the biggest global peace protests in human history, the UN said "No", yet the US went straight ahead with it's "coalition of the willing". Framing this like the "US just wanted to spread democracy out of the goodness of her heart" is not only dishonest, it's extremely cynical. The US isn't some "nice good guy", it didn't go into Iraq because it cared so deeply about the Iraqi people, it went in there for its own geopolitical interests.
    - mc32 8y ago
      I didn't say I thought the hawks were nice. I'm saying what they wanted to believe they were doing. Saddam was a dictator and an all around bad guy [he gassed, he killed indiscriminately], he also, like Marshall Tito, kept a lid on the pressure cooker. But, yes, there was reason to get rid of him. If I take your claim at face value, Democrats claiming Trump should be impeached is the height of folly because they have no reason to want to unseat him.
      - acct1771 8y ago
        They're the height of folly because these criminals aren't ever held responsible at that level, not because they're wrong.
      - freeflight 8y ago
        Sure enough, he gassed, while the CIA gave him a hand with that when he gassed Iranians [0]. Just like Syria used to be an "ally in the war on terror" when Assad tortured terrorist suspects for the US, only to then turn around and use said torture as a pretext for "regime change actions" [1]. This is a common theme with US foreign policy, not just in the MENA region, and it's a major factor for the US not only losing international goodwill but also stirring up anti-US sentiments because most rational people see it for what it is: Hypocrisy You also don't need to take any of my "claims" at face value, they've been considered established facts since the very beginning [2], particularly outside of the US [3]. Only in the Anglo-Saxon sphere was there any support for the invasion and most of that support was fabricated through influencing the narrative in the media [4]. The fact that you are still able to deny this, over a decade after, with all of its consequences undeniably impacting the world to this day, speaks bounds and volumes about the levels of indoctrination that happened back then. What happened in Iraq was one of the greatest injustices in modern history and a major factor for radicalizing moderate Muslims, the "War on Terror" did nothing but create more terror. Exactly how Osama wanted 9/11 to play out, just like it kicked off massive refugee streams into Europe, lasting to this day. Yet here you are, still trying to justify it like it's been the most normal thing in the world. [0] https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-pro... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/19/syria-us-ally-human-rights https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/19/syria-... [2] https://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html https://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html [3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq [4] https://vimeo.com/67739294 https://vimeo.com/67739294