symple

3 ms·

1.
by symple 3y ago
You agree with the point I made but don’t like the statement, “We’ve done 9/11 type events on other nations for decades.” I’m perplexed by this. Don’t see how it can be a fruitful experience to nitpick that statement of mine when you
2.
by symple 3y ago
Our reaction to 9/11 was an overreaction. Lots of places have been devastated by U.S. actions and those people haven’t had similar overreactions.
3.
by symple 3y ago
War is the ultimate act of overt violence. Discounting examples from war is strange. What does it matter to the victims if a piece of paper somewhere declares it a war? I can’t point to a single act that satisfies your criteria. The U.S.
4.
by symple 3y ago
It’s an easy way to absolve a nation of guilt if you negate any examples done during war. Our bombings in North Vietnam were entirely immoral and are not less so because we were at war. Though no actual declaration of war was made. The G
5.
by symple 3y ago
My memory of the events is that pretty much everyone supported the invasion of Afghanistan. Manufactured support was needed for Iraq. Invasion of Iraq was 1.5 years after 9/11 and Iraq wasn’t tied to 9/11. I think our overreacti
6.
by symple 3y ago
Iraqi WMD was believed enough by the public to make it politically infeasible for most Congressmen to vote against authorizing war against Iraq. That the NYT later issued an apology is irrelevant. Iraqi WMD is a great example of manufactu
7.
by symple 3y ago
It’s the Completeness Theorem.
8.
by symple 3y ago
The provability of a statement depends upon which system you are in. For instance, within PA one can’t prove that PA is consistent but within ZFC one can prove that PA is consistent. We can say of a statement: Statement A can’t be proven