prev <-> next
[2004-11-12 12:59:54] - Mig: Was it also proven that FDR knew that the attack was coming and did nothing to prevent it? -Paul
[2004-11-12 12:56:53] - paul: actually FDR goading the japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor has actually been proven as fact by some guy (don't remember his name) who was doing FOIA requests on the subject. Now the big debate between historians is whether FDR was in the right for doing so. - mig
[2004-11-12 12:35:13] - Paul: I'm...not...saying....anything. heh heh -dave
[2004-11-12 12:18:03] - btw, that probably should've had a smiley after it.
-Paul[2004-11-12 12:03:48] - Dave: Well, how am I supposed to know what you're going to say? Should I just warn you of everything not to say right now and get it over with? -Paul
[2004-11-12 12:01:02] - paul: hehe oh. you need to warn me about these things BEFORE i saw them, heh heh heh. Pre-emptively warn me ^_^ LOL -dave
[2004-11-12 12:00:10] - Paul: don't doubt it. can't really blame brits for doing it either -dave
[2004-11-12 12:00:05] - Dave: That's what I've been trying to say, but I wouldn't be too vocal about that because I don't think many other people here agree.
-Paul[2004-11-12 11:59:36] - well, I guess voter turnout is bad because it shows that not that many people care -dave
[2004-11-12 11:59:32] - (shipping munitions on passenger ships, mining German ports in an attempt to starve the country). -Paul
[2004-11-12 11:59:06] - Dave: I might've been wrong about America being more sympathetic to the Germans to start off with (although I swear I read that somewhere) but I do know that most Americans didn't want to get involved and that the British engaged in a lot of outright lies (German soldiers commiting attrocities) and unethical acts... -Paul
[2004-11-12 11:59:01] - another interesting thought. is lower voter turnout really bad? If a person doesn't even care enough to get to a voting booth once in four years, do we really want our leader determined by those kind of people? -dave
[2004-11-12 11:54:51] - Paul: hehe ok. I'll take your word for it anyways. You know tons more about history than I -dave
[2004-11-12 11:54:05] - Bah, you'll have to find stuff about what I was talking about on your own.
-Paul[2004-11-12 11:50:13] - So a lot of people think FDR tried to goad Japan into attacking the US by doing that since Japan had few options without a constant source of oil. -Paul
[2004-11-12 11:49:22] - Dave: Well, there's a lot of theories behind Pearl Harbor. Most people think FDR was itching for a reason to get involved in WW2 and the reason Japan decided to attack the US is because the US had cut off oil exports. -Paul
[2004-11-12 11:45:42] - paul: interesting thought, I wonder if the US would have entered WW2 anyways, so attacking Pearl Harbor was the best the japanese could do of a bad situation? -dave
[2004-11-12 11:45:32] - Dave: Trying to find evidence to back me up, but I'm having trouble.
-Paul[2004-11-12 11:44:32] - paul: most interesting. guess you gotta hand it to the brits -dave
[2004-11-12 11:43:38] - pierce: safe trip! -dave
[2004-11-12 11:43:10] - pierce: if it was intelligence, try to change it, like they are. if you don't like the administrations judgement, vote it out. All you can do, methinks -dave
[2004-11-12 11:42:08] - Dave: Yeah, at the beginning of WW1, Americans felt more sympathy for the Germans than the British (remember, we had fought two wars with the British up until then). A lot of it had to do with German immigrants feeling sympathetic to their homeland. -Paul
[2004-11-12 11:41:14] - Pierce: Have a safe trip, ttyl. -Paul
[2004-11-12 11:40:29] - I have to head to the airport now, so I'll pick it back up then. TTYL. - pierce
[2004-11-12 11:39:34] - Paul: did we really sympathize with the Germans? wow -dave
[2004-11-12 11:39:19] - dave: so since we don't know, let's assume either one may be true. How can we prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future? Keep in mind that rearchitecting intelligence agencies will only work if it was error, not if it was corruption from the executive levels. - pierce
[2004-11-12 11:39:07] - Pierce: I don't see what your point is. I've already said that I believe the reasons for invading Iraq were bad and that it was a mistake. -Paul
[2004-11-12 11:38:23] - Dave: That's true, and it was only supposed to pick up on intentional crimes. Although I guess Cruise was a bit pissed at him at the time the accident happened. -Paul
[2004-11-12 11:37:27] - To support what Pierce is saying, the British did a masterful job during World War 1 of swaying American opinion from sympathizing with the Germans to sympathizing with the British by using propaganda and feeding us purposefully faulty intelligence. -Paul
[2004-11-12 11:37:18] - pierce: same can be said about the media and them skewing things one way or another -dave
[2004-11-12 11:37:02] - pierce: also true, hard for us to know one way or another. -dave
[2004-11-12 11:36:31] - pierce: nope, I don't. everyone is free to feel skeptical. I just don't hold it against the people who made the decision to act on that intelligence. -dave
[2004-11-12 11:35:56] - Paul+Dave: and yet, for every story about an intelligence underling who screwed up, I've seen a story about pressure from above to find a way to point the finger at Iraq, including picking and choosing evidence to suit their goals. - pierce
[2004-11-12 11:34:49] - Paul: reason they shut it down i think, was because they were wrong about cruise's intent - it was an accident, not murder -dave
[2004-11-12 11:34:30] - dave: the Brits (as a government, not the people) were in our pocket economically, and their evidence was also dead wrong. I hope you don't hold it against the rest of the world that they're skeptical of the U.K.'s motivation and honesty. - pierce
[2004-11-12 11:34:13] - Paul: I think the guy who was hired to kill her may have been the drug addict or whatever, but he was still hired to kill her I believe. -dave
[2004-11-12 11:34:00] - Pierce: Right, this was an example of PS gone wrong. But just because it failed once (and based on what probably was too extreme a definition) doesn't mean the whole theory is bunk. -Paul
[2004-11-12 11:33:20] - pierce: those are probably two of the 'best' intelligence agencies in the world. both coincided..and were wrong -dave
[2004-11-12 11:32:48] - Dave: I thought there was some drug addict that they had gotten as a murder double or something that they killed though. -Paul
[2004-11-12 11:32:43] - pierce: hence their intelligence turnover as well -dave
[2004-11-12 11:32:34] - pierce: the brits' intelligence coincided with ours -dave
[2004-11-12 11:31:23] - Dave: but this goes back to the discussion of unilateral action. We had conclusive evidence, but few people believed us except those who we essentially bribed. Looking for a more (genuinely) multilateral solution could have prevented this error. - pierce
[2004-11-12 11:31:15] - pierce: no they weren't, cuz the guy really was hired to kill her, and he would have. it's just that they prevented that murder, but not the next guy coming to kill her -dave
[2004-11-12 11:30:27] - pierce: yes, that's the question, hence all the hullabahoo in the CIA and intelligence community. Firing people, hiring people, rearranging things -dave
[2004-11-12 11:29:37] - Dave: they were wrong about the murder of Anne Lively. - pierce
[2004-11-12 11:29:24] - Dave: Did he? I thought that he didn't, but I don't remember that part too well. They still missed the other murder, but if the system was never wrong, then it's interesting that they would scrap it. -Paul
[2004-11-12 11:28:22] - Dave: so your defense of the Iraq action was that we did have conclusive evidence (in which case, why are we bothering to argue since it would have been a preemptive strike under my definition), but our conclusive evidence was wrong. In which case, the proper line of discussion should be "how can we have been so dead wrong". - pierce
[2004-11-12 11:28:00] - Paul: actually, they weren't even wrong, cuz he did shoot the guy -dave
[2004-11-12 11:27:09] - Just like in Minority Report. They thought the system was flawless but it turns out that they were wrong once. -Paul
[2004-11-12 11:26:42] - There is always the chance with any PS that you're in the wrong. -Paul
[2004-11-12 11:26:38] - oops, nukes should have been wmd -dave
[2004-11-12 11:26:17] - Pierce: You could also be wrong that the guy shooting everybody in the room was going to shoot you. -Paul
[2004-11-12 11:26:03] - Pierce: I don't see what Iraq has to do with this really except that it's an example of PS being wrong (possibly). -Paul
[2004-11-12 11:25:57] - pierce: (shrug) the argument (not that I'm saying it was right) is that the CIA showed up and said, he's got nukes, probability is high he is going to use them, or sell them to terrorists. Govt says, we take him out -dave
[2004-11-12 11:24:18] - But the estimation of "resulting harm" must itself be based on some conclusive evidence, so I don't think this affects my point. Iraq had little to no means of harming us from afar. The risk of harm was minimal. Yet we "preventatively" struck out against them. Who is in the right? - pierce
[2004-11-12 11:24:07] - And I think most people in the world (not all) would agree that if it's some high percentage of probableness that somebody is going to hurt you, that you hurt him first. -Paul
[2004-11-12 11:23:58] - Paul: exactly, the discussion is on what is conclusive evidence. or what % chance is high enough -dave
[2004-11-12 11:23:26] - Because I think that it's hard to prove that anything is inevitable unless you let it happen. So it's more of a matter of how probably something is. -Paul
[2004-11-12 11:22:44] - Pierce: If I understand correctly, and I probably don't, then I think the disagreement is between what is inevitable and what isn't? -Paul
[2004-11-12 11:22:19] - Okay, I amend my claims to include a "risk-to-harm ratio" factor. A man with a nuke in the white house, of whatever ethnicity, has a disproportionately high resulting harm if you assume the worst. Would the inclusion of that variable make my argument suit you better? - pierce
[2004-11-12 11:20:52] - Pierce: Now you are a PSA.
-Paul[2004-11-12 11:19:59] - Pierce: I didn't mean to imply that there was any connection between 90% and US evidence, they were meant to be unrelated. I'm still coming back to the fact that the result is only extreme because you are thinking that all PSAs are extreme. -Paul
[2004-11-12 11:19:40] - Dave: yes, you try to stop him. He's shooting "everyone in the room", you have no explanation on his part convincing you that you're an exception to that rule, so it's preemptive. - pierce
[2004-11-12 11:19:28] - Pierce: serial killer shows up at your house with a gun. Do you shoot him? ^_^ -dave
[2004-11-12 11:18:51] - I think Dave is making my point better than I am. Basically, any sort of self-defense is a type of PSA in my book. -Paul
[2004-11-12 11:18:35] - Pierce: Arab man walks into the white house carrying a backpack nuke, do you try to stop him? mebbe he's just going to turn it over to them ^_^ -dave
[2004-11-12 11:18:25] - Paul: I'm accepting your "90% confidence" claim, even though it's faulty in the original context (the U.S.'s "evidence" about Iraq's WMDs). Even with your (non-extreme) assumption, the result is extreme. - pierce
[2004-11-12 11:17:58] - Pierce: Right, exactly, and I think I probably agree with that ending. But if you want to go by the movie, then note how the world that was based on PSAs was virtually free of crime. -Paul
[2004-11-12 11:17:52] - Pierce: so you're in room. man comes in, and starts shooting everyone in the room. Do you try to stop him? He hasn't shot you yet -dave
[2004-11-12 11:16:33] - Pierce: But again, I think you're being a little too extreme in your view of PSAs. -Paul
[2004-11-12 11:16:25] - Paul: yes, and Minority Report (at least, the movie) ended with the abolition of preventative strike even when it was nearly foolproof. Not that that conclusively answers this question, but since you brought it up... - pierce
[2004-11-12 11:15:56] - Pierce: That's true that in order to be 100% safe from other humans, the best thing to do is to kill them all off. -Paul
[2004-11-12 11:15:17] - dave: "you do something before it happens" hinges on the clause that "it happens", which makes inevitability a crucial distinction. - pierce
[2004-11-12 11:15:00] - Actually, Minority Report is very relevant to this discussion, now that I think about it. -Paul
[2004-11-12 11:14:28] - Paul: you're right, there is a big difference there. But the fact is, if everyone in the world is wrong 10% of the time they preventatively strike, then no one can be assured that they are safe from someone else's mistakes, and everyone has an obligation to PS to protect themselves. - pierce
[2004-11-12 11:14:18] - Pierce: This reminds me of that scene from Minority Report because you can never really know if something is inevitable if you stopped it before it happened. -Paul
[2004-11-12 11:12:57] - pierce: doesn't matter whether it is inevitable or not. you do something before it happens, it is pre-emptive -dave
[2004-11-12 11:12:30] - pierce: they are the same. in both cases the guy hadn't attacked you yet. so whatever you do is pre-emptive -dave
[2004-11-12 11:11:27] - dave: the difference between preemptive and preventative is whether (preemptive) or not (preventative) the attack is inevitable. You may have been being facetious, but the crux of this issue is that they're not the same. - pierce
[2004-11-12 11:11:23] - There's a big difference between killing somebody because you can't be 100% sure that he won't kill you first and killing somebody because you're 90% sure he is trying to kill you. -Paul
[2004-11-12 11:10:44] - I think the key is that I think most PSAs operate "within reason" (and yes, I'm well aware of how relative that is) whereas I think you're envisioning them as people who kill anybody who might possibly be a threat. -Paul
[2004-11-12 11:09:32] - Pierce: I might've missed what started this conversation so you might be right, but I find it hard to believe that Dave was advocating killing anybody who might possibly threaten him, even if he has no evidence that they would. -Paul
[2004-11-12 11:08:08] - Pierce: In fact, I dare say that I think you are more of a PSA than I am. You're the one who doesn't want to allow people to have nuclear weapons because of stuff they might do, right? Well, that's a form of PS. -Paul
[2004-11-12 11:07:26] - err, pre-emptive, preventative, same diff. -dave
[2004-11-12 11:07:08] - Paul: then by saying that, you're abandoning the "defend my family/tribe/nation over other priorities" reasoning that started this discussion. - pierce
[2004-11-12 11:07:06] - preventative cuz he hadn't shot me yet -dave
[2004-11-12 11:06:35] - Pierce: Again, you're assuming PSAs believe that a lack of evidence that somebody isn't a threat (lack of trust) is a reason to attack. I don't think most PSAs think like that. -Paul
[2004-11-12 11:06:07] - can't help but mention this last analogy. Man comes at me with gun in hand, raises gun and points at me. I shoot him. Turns out his 'gun' was a water pistol. This was a PS imo -dave
[2004-11-12 11:05:45] - Pierce: Being a PSA does not mean that you attack anybody just because you don't trust them. It can mean that, but I would wager that it doesn't mean that for most PSAs. -Paul
[2004-11-12 11:04:51] - Pierce: Again, you're assuming that untrustworthiness = reason to attack and that's just simply not true for most people. -Paul
[2004-11-12 11:04:29] - pierce: the heart of the matter is judgement and judgement is being done by both PSAs and non-PSAs. One person's PS might not be another's PS -dave
[2004-11-12 11:03:48] - Paul: it's the modern version of the geographical limitations that kept the world relatively stable (and yet frequently at war) in the past. - pierce
[2004-11-12 11:03:18] - Paul: I do think the vast majority are PSAs, but the only reason things are stable is that the U.S. (and China to an extent) is the only country that is not assured destruction for practicing preventative strike. - pierce
[2004-11-12 11:03:13] - pierce: well, I's gots to work. I'm sorry, but I'm failing in my attempt to make you understand what I'm saying. We should talk about it sometime face to face. -dave
[2004-11-12 11:01:54] - Paul: no, that's incorrect because they just have to be untrustworthy; they don't actually have to be planning anything. If B attacks A because they "reasonably" think A is going to attack them but have no conclusive evidence, then C can't trust that B won't make the same determination about them, and C must attack B. And so on. - pierce
[2004-11-12 11:01:38] - Besides, I think the vast majority of people in this world are PSAs to varying degrees. It's just that they draw their lines in different places. -Paul
[2004-11-12 10:59:08] - Pierce: Only if that one PSA plans on attacking everybody. -Paul
[2004-11-12 10:58:20] - Paul: but if everyone adopts a preventative strike philosophy, then one PSA can destabilize the whole. - pierce
[2004-11-12 10:56:39] - Pierce: One PSA is not representative of the whole.
-Paul[2004-11-12 10:56:07] - dave: and how did you conclusively decide that, may I ask? - pierce
[2004-11-12 10:55:37] - Paul: most PSAs would say that, but to bring this back around to the original topic, the U.S. demonstrated in Iraq that our claim of the necessity of positive evidence is not one that the world can trust. - pierce
[2004-11-12 10:55:02] - pierce: slight distrust is the sticking point. I'm saying that I thought about it and conclusively decided he was going to attack me. -dave
[2004-11-12 10:54:19] - Pierce: I don't think Dave is going to kill his neighbor just for looking at him funny. -Paul
[2004-11-12 10:53:56] - Paul: that's correct, assuming any escalation (which is, again, inevitable). Using Dave as a representative example, he admitted that slight distrust of Davetwo would make him start to approach a first-strike course of events. - pierce
[2004-11-12 10:53:39] - Pierce: And I'm just saying that I don't agree with that. -Paul
[2004-11-12 10:53:20] - Pierce: I think you're trying to say that all PSAs are trigger happy people just waiting for an excuse to kill everyone. -Paul
[2004-11-12 10:52:55] - Dave: Yes, that's exactly it.
-Paul[2004-11-12 10:52:53] - Pierce: so it does not escalate into preventative strikes all around -dave
[2004-11-12 10:52:39] - Pierce: And I think most PSAs would say that they need some positive evidence (ie, something other than a lack of evidence that the other PSAs aren't a threat) to conduct a PS. -Paul
[2004-11-12 10:52:30] - Pierce: what Paul is saying, is that preventative strikes don't mean a complete lack of judgement or restraint. -dave
[2004-11-12 10:51:50] - Paul: even the slightest escalation of threat (which would be inevitable in practice) in the world you describe would cascade into "preventative" strikes all around. - pierce
[2004-11-12 10:51:30] - Pierce: It sounded like you were saying that preventative strike advocates (PSAs) should in theory attack all other PSAs because they can't trust them to not attack, uh, them. -Paul
[2004-11-12 10:51:17] - Pierce: besides I don't get what their judgement has to do with anything. So what if they have a valid reason to attack me? Does that mean I won't defend myself? -dave
[2004-11-12 10:50:27] - Pierce: but i am confirming it, using my own judgement. You're just saying, I have to go compare my judgement with everyone else's before doing something -dave
[2004-11-12 10:49:57] - grr... "admin" = "admit". Damn web application. - pierce
[2004-11-12 10:48:39] - Paul: and I'll admin to being thoroughly confused about your sentence starting with "I think the difference of opinion". Mind clarifying? - pierce
[2004-11-12 10:47:59] - I think the only thing I was saying is that a world full of preventative strike advocates could easily live in relative peaceful coexistence with their neighbors (at least as much as people do now). -Paul
[2004-11-12 10:47:06] - dave: you're not trusting theirs in that you're not confirming your suspicions that they plan to attack you. - pierce
[2004-11-12 10:47:05] - Pierce: Ok, then I'll admit to being thoroughly confused as to what we're disagreeing on.
-Paul[2004-11-12 10:47:03] - Pierce: of course, if it looked like Paul was beating the person up fine on his own, then maybe I'd wait for an explanation - this would be a judgment call on my part ^_^ -dave
[2004-11-12 10:46:26] - Pierce: I think the difference of opinion is that you're saying that preventative strikes means absence of evidence that somebody is NOT a threat means that we should attack them while I'm saying that most preventative strike advocates would need positive evidence that somebody IS threatening. -Paul
[2004-11-12 10:46:05] - Paul: don't you see that that example meets the "conclusive evidence" criterion? According to the accepted rules of international diplomacy, such actions, without explanation, can definitvely be interpreted as an act of war. - pierce
[2004-11-12 10:45:52] - Pierce: exactly, that's where we're different. I trust Paul's judgement enough that I would go in swinging before anyone explained anything. Otherewise, Paul might get hurt if I waited -dave
[2004-11-12 10:43:59] - Dave: no, that doesn't make sense if Paul is the attacker. You should be making your own judgements and not relying on trust in Paul because Paul is not infallible. If Paul convinces you to attack with him (with evidence), that's a different story. - pierce
[2004-11-12 10:43:58] - Pierce: Are you saying we should wait until the first Chinese soldier kills an American before fighting back? -Paul
[2004-11-12 10:43:53] - pierce: how am I not trusting theirs? -dave
[2004-11-12 10:43:39] - Pierce: Yes, you can. Very easily. What if suddenly China launched it's entire navy towards the US and cut off all diplomatic ties and started sending coded messages everywhere? -Paul
[2004-11-12 10:43:36] - pierce: "your use of the word reasonably is far more subject than my use..." hehe, amusing how everything boils downs to popular opinions -dave
[2004-11-12 10:42:44] - Whoops, "I'm just saying that believING that preventative strikes are justified" -Paul
[2004-11-12 10:42:33] - dave: how can other people trust your judgement if you're not trusting theirs? - pierce
[2004-11-12 10:42:10] - Pierce: but, if I saw Paul attacking someone, then I'd probably go attack them too, just cuz I'd rather risk being charged with beating someone later, than having something happen to Paul. Make sense? -dave
[2004-11-12 10:42:08] - Paul: but when you're talking about entire nations of people, you can "reasonably" believe that anyone will hurt you. Your use of the word "reasonably" is far more subjective than my use of the term "conclusive evidence". - pierce
[2004-11-12 10:42:07] - Pierce: For the record, I don't necessarily believe in preventative strikes being a good thing, I'm just saying that believe that preventative strikes are justified won't lead to everybody killing eachother (which is what it sounds like you are implying). -Paul
[2004-11-12 10:41:18] - Pierce: really, I think what it boils down to, is other people have to trust my judgement, that I am not going to attack them without just reason. Like, if heard that Paul had beat up some dude on the subway, I'd automatically think, the guy must have done something -dave
[2004-11-12 10:41:10] - Pierce: I think most reasonable people don't think that you should attack anybody who could possibly hurt you. I think they would say to attack people who you reasonably believe will hurt you. -Paul
[2004-11-12 10:40:43] - Dave: and what I'm saying is that that approach may appear to work from the most localized perspective, but it fails when everyone adopts it. - pierce
[2004-11-12 10:40:38] - Pierce: I know what the prisoner's dilemma is. I think you're being too encompassing with your justification for pre-emptive strike though. -Paul
[2004-11-12 10:39:51] - Paul: it only makes sense to be on the winning side of the atrocity if you know an atrocity is inevitable. The philosophy you guys are defending does make an atrocity inevitable. - pierce
[2004-11-12 10:39:16] - but I won't necessarily wait for anyone and everyone to examing the evidence, make up their mind, let me convince them, etc, before I do something -dave
[2004-11-12 10:39:01] - Paul: and if you're trying to protect your family, you can't assume that people won't do that. And the fact that you can't assume that means that others can't assume you won't attack. I missed if there was an answer, but do you guys know what the Prisoner's Dilemma is? - pierce
[2004-11-12 10:38:49] - Pierce: yes, I am taking the 'limited nationalistic viewpoint.' That's what I've been trying to say, if I decide that I think someone's going to attack me or mine, then I will risk looking like a 'perpetrator' to see them safe. It'd be nice if other people agreed with me and thought the evidence was conclusive as well. -dave
[2004-11-12 10:37:57] - Pierce: If that's the case (US attacking Japan instead of other way around), wouldn't it make sense to be on winning side of the atrocity instead of the losing side? -Paul
[2004-11-12 10:37:47] - I think we can all agree that "conclusive evidence" is a subjective term, but one that is easier to define in a universal way than "justification for first strike". Therefore, it works better as a litmus test for justifying a first strike. - pierce
[2004-11-12 10:36:29] - Pierce: Obviously some people could take pre-emptive strikes to the extreme and just go around and attack everybody but I don't think you can just assume that everybody would do that. -Paul
[2004-11-12 10:35:59] - dave: and furthermore with respect to Pearl Harbor, you're missing the big picture in favor of the limited nationalistic viewpoint. If we had attacked first without justification, then the atrocity of Pearl Harbor would simply be mirrored with us as the perpetrator and Japan as the victim. - pierce
[2004-11-12 10:35:40] - distant example -dave
[2004-11-12 10:35:24] - Pierce: Yes he is, he's waiting for conclusive evidence as he sees it. And I imagine that if Dave has found conclusive evidence then the neighbor must have SOME idea of why Dave is attacking him. -Paul
[2004-11-12 10:35:22] - Pierce: ok, I'll agree with you about the Pearl Harbor thing. I was just trying to find some way to bring that event to a more personal decision level rather than the distance example it is -dave
[2004-11-12 10:34:24] - Pierce: at least it doesn't seem like it at this point -dave
[2004-11-12 10:34:21] - dave: "if your family died" is hyperbole... whether or not you had family that died in Pearl Harbor is not a variable in whether a first-strike would have been justified. It's completely independent. - pierce
[2004-11-12 10:34:00] - Pierce: for the record, I would have conclusive evidence, at least for me. But that evidence would not be conclusive for you -dave
[2004-11-12 10:33:07] - Paul: so from the neighbor's perspective, Dave would attack him on a "whim", because Dave's not waiting for conclusive evidence of an upcoming attack. - pierce
[2004-11-12 10:32:22] - pierce: GW2? Yes Pearl Harbor was conclusive evidence. And if your family died in that attack, you're saying you still think we shouldn't have attacked first? -dave
[2004-11-12 10:32:21] - dave: n/m, you answered it. - pierce
[2004-11-12 10:31:36] - dave: what if you couldn't definitively "befriend" him for idealogical reasons (which is more applicable to the reality of international relations)? - pierce
[2004-11-12 10:31:05] - pierce: but if he didn't like me / hated me, then I'd definitely start thinking about things to do -dave
[2004-11-12 10:30:10] - pierce: that's exactly it, I think I'd befriend him, and like him a lot cuz he agrees with me / is just as fiercely protective as me. -dave
[2004-11-12 10:29:43] - dave: regarding "conclusive evidence", I understand that it's a subjective definition. But it's a subjective definition that you can define with your reputation. Waiting for Pearl Harbor in WW2 was "conclusive evidence". Bogus intelligence in GW2 was not, and I think we can all agree about that. - pierce
[2004-11-12 10:29:08] - pierce: you know, it really comes down to who you include in your group. Like, I include my friends in my little protective bubble right? So I don't worry about prev. strikes from them, and they don't from me -dave
[2004-11-12 10:27:59] - Dave: what would you do if someone exactly like you in every way was your neighbor? Knowing that you cannot predict their threshhold for attacking your family, aren't you obligated to attack first under your philosophy? - pierce
[2004-11-12 10:27:55] - Pierce: I mean, do you honestly think Dave is going to go around killing people at whim because he believes in a preventative strike?
-Paul[2004-11-12 10:27:30] - Pierce: I think it's in semantics now. 'conclusive evidence' is relative. Like I said, there's just a line somewhere, and where the two of us draw our lines doesn't coincide -dave
[2004-11-12 10:26:51] - Paul: I think you're at odds with the logic of most of the rest of the world in that, though... (cntd) - pierce
[2004-11-12 10:26:46] - Pierce: I think you're assuming that just because somebody thinks preventative strikes are justified that their going to go around attacking everybody because they MIGHT be a threat. That's not the point at all. -Paul
[2004-11-12 10:26:02] - Pierce: well, one way to look at it is it makes you try your durndest to convince everyone that you don't mean them any harm ^_^ -dave
[2004-11-12 10:25:30] - dave: I think it's important to note the fact that our lines seem to be on opposite sides of the requirement for conclusive evidence. Not saying mine is foolproof, but I believe that that's the threshhold at which the other guy can feel confident that you won't attack him. - pierce
[2004-11-12 10:25:21] - Pierce: *Shrug* I don't feel the need to attack Dave because he feels that preventative strikes are justified. -Paul
[2004-11-12 10:25:07] - -dave
[2004-11-12 10:25:03] - Pierce: hey, I have an interesting analogy. It's like in Ender's Game, when Ender kills those two kids in two separate situations. He didnt' necessarily have to kill them to get out of the situations, but he deemed it better to make a statement once, to save pain later. Not exactly a perfect analogy, but I thought it is interesting nonetheless ^_^
[2004-11-12 10:23:41] - Paul: but if you're the other guy, would "it doesn't mean he'll always do it" be comforting enough to dissuade you of a preventative strike of your own? - pierce
[2004-11-12 10:23:03] - Pierce: (shrug) you draw a line. I'm just saying my line is much further to one side than yours is -dave
[2004-11-12 10:22:30] - Pierce: I think you're being a little overly dramatic about preventative strikes leaving no room for peaceful coesxistence. Just because Dave believes he is justified in attacking somebody before they attack him doesn't mean he'll always do it. -Paul
[2004-11-12 10:22:14] - Pierce: hmm, that statement still sounded very extreme. I didn't mean it to be -dave
[2004-11-12 10:21:32] - dave: how do you draw a distinction between "half-cocked" and "leaning towards the safe side" if neither one needs conclusive evidence? - pierce
[2004-11-12 10:20:39] - Pierce: let me rephrase, I don't mean people should go off half-cocked all the time, but I'll definitely lean towards the side of being safe and hurting some other people. To me, other people's pain is of much less concern than my family's -dave
[2004-11-12 10:19:26] - dave: do you know what the prisoner's dilemma is? - pierce
[2004-11-12 10:19:05] - Peaceful coexistance can only exist when (a) there's no practical chance of an attack (which was historically achieved by geographical limitations), or (b) when both sides agree that preventative strike is unacceptable. - pierce
[2004-11-12 10:18:53] - Pierce: again, I entirely agree. It's not black and white, tons of grey. I was just trying to make my point that if the issue is grey, and it's not clear, I'll come down on the side of being a murderer and having my family alive every time -dave
[2004-11-12 10:17:34] - Dave: but that philosophy, at its basic level, fails when applied to a society as a whole. Your neighbor, understanding your adoption of that philosophy, is similarly justified in attacking you. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that leaves no room for peaceful coexistance. - pierce
[2004-11-12 10:17:20] - Pierce: Still, both are based on the theory that attacking now will prevent something worse from happening later. -Paul
[2004-11-12 10:15:47] - Now, in the real world things aren't so black-and-white, which is why we have adapted the justification of Iraq to "liberation" instead of "preemptive attack". - pierce
[2004-11-12 10:15:45] - pierce: I entirely agree, like I said before, I would rather be a murderer, and have my family alive, than not be one and have them dead -dave
[2004-11-12 10:14:54] - I wonder, do the Germans resent Hitler for what he did? Would it have been better for Germany if he hadn't? -dave
[2004-11-12 10:14:31] - Paul+Dave: there's a difference between preemptive strike and preventative strike. The former is justified as a form of self-defense, but if you turn out to be wrong about the inevitability of an attack then you have become a murderer yourself. - pierce
[2004-11-12 10:11:56] - pierce: *nod* I don't doubt that. Now compare me to Hitler ^_^ -dave
[2004-11-12 10:11:18] - But if you don't do anything and the atrocity happens, then you get criticized for not doing anything. -Paul
[2004-11-12 10:11:03] - It's really one of those "damned if you do, damned it you don't" things. Because if you are right and pre-emptively attacking prevents some greater atrocity, people don't believe you and say what you did was bad. -Paul
[2004-11-12 10:10:12] - Pierce: And a lot of atrocities could've been prevented had that approach been adopted. -Paul
[2004-11-12 10:10:10] - pierce: *nod* I agree, but still, I'd much rather polarize people's views, have people hate me, whatever, rather than have a dead family member -dave
[2004-11-12 10:08:35] - dave: I mean, almost every atrocity in history can be justified by that shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later approach. - pierce
[2004-11-12 10:06:47] - dave: and while I agree with a lot of the practical value of that philosophy, it's definitely a double-edged sword in that it contributes to rabid nationalism on both sides, which makes it easy for extremists to polarize people to their causes. - pierce
[2004-11-12 10:05:35] - pierce: and I would definitely rather be wrong about his intent and still blowing him away, rather than debating the matter and risking my family -dave
[2004-11-12 10:04:32] - pierce: to be an extreme bigot, my view basically is, I will go to an extreme amount of effort to protect those 'on my side' regardless of consequences to others. Not necessarily a healthy view. But honestly, if there was sufficient suspicion that my neighbor was going to murder my family, I'd pre-emptively blow him away in a heartbeat -dave
[2004-11-12 10:01:00] - meaning, that for all intents and purposes, we were acting completely unilaterally and our "allies" were simply playing the role of mercenary on a much grander scale. - pierce
[2004-11-12 10:00:54] - pierce: that's definitely something that's been bandied about in the media, but from the flip side, one country almost always has to convince the others to do something, otherwise nothing gets done. How much 'convincing' is good/bad, is definitely up for debate as well -dave
[2004-11-12 09:58:13] - dave+paul: As far as I've seen, it's been pretty clear that what allies we had in Iraq, we had in spite of the will of the people of those nations. We used our economic status and political capital to pressure them into something that they probably didn't agree with. - pierce
[2004-11-12 09:57:52] - pierce: *nod* definitely a judgement call. our views on where that line is are probably fairly clear as well, hence who we each voted for -dave
[2004-11-12 09:56:30] - dave: I guess my concern is, when you're talking about human lives and billions upon billions of dollars, how you define "very clear" should itself be very clear. And I don't think this administration has met that criterion. - pierce
[2004-11-12 09:55:25] - pierce: actually, when I think of countries that 'really matter' I just think of the US, Brits, Russia, so we didn't have Russia. I suppose China is a factor too, tho it doesn't seem like anyone bothers with their opinion on the middle east -dave
[2004-11-12 09:54:15] - Pierce: Well, how many more countries do we need on our side before what we're doing becomes "right" enough then? -Paul
[2004-11-12 09:52:54] - Paul: I understand, but you don't necessarily need a majority on each action, but it's much harder if you're going it alone on everything. - pierce
[2004-11-12 09:51:55] - pierce: I believe it is, just like oriental is derogatory to chinese / asians ^_^ But it should be ok, since I'm traditionally supposed to hate the japanese anyways, neh? ^_^ -dave
[2004-11-12 09:51:41] - Pierce: It's so overwhelmingly difficult to get decent majority of the world to agree on anything. -Paul
[2004-11-12 09:50:56] - pierce: (shrug) yes it's a bigger playing field with bigger stakes, but I don't think the analogy is too horrible of a fit -dave
[2004-11-12 09:50:37] - dave: incidentally, isn't "jap" a derogatory term? I doubt you mean it that way, but somehow I thought it was. - pierce
[2004-11-12 09:49:47] - dave: I think that's been one of the largest problems with this administration, that they go with their instinct in spite of the facts, because "what needs to be done is very clear" to them. - pierce
[2004-11-12 09:48:50] - dave: I do too, but when you're talking about international war I don't think there should be much left to "gut feeling" when there are still (reasonable) objections on the table. - pierce
[2004-11-12 09:47:51] - dave: that previous comment was regarding japan. I wholeheartedly agree that every nation has a specific agenda, and it's not always beneficial to the plan as a whole. But if we're really doing the right thing, we can convince other nations despite the protests of one. - pierce
[2004-11-12 09:47:49] - pierce: I guess, in the end, it comes down to a part of my character - I hate being in a situation, where what needs to be done is very clear to me, but everyone just sits around yapping and worrying about this and that and getting nowhere. -dave
[2004-11-12 09:46:41] - dave: heh. I'm sure that was their intention all along. - pierce
[2004-11-12 09:46:14] - pierce: no i agree, some accountability is good, and restraint is also good. But I honestly think that some nations (france comes to mind) make too much of a ruckus for how much they contribute towards anything -dave
[2004-11-12 09:44:55] - pierce: mebbe now that the japs are militarizing again, we can shove some stuff off onto them ^_^ -dave
[2004-11-12 09:44:24] - dave: I have to disagree about the committment levels, and I actually think that the politics are a good thing... it reduces the chance that one nation will make a big mistake, and it opens nations up to accountability if they do. - pierce
[2004-11-12 09:43:14] - Pierce: there's definitely a happy medium there somewhere, but where it is is anyone's guess -dave
[2004-11-12 09:42:39] - pierce: yeah, having allies is good. but at the same time, I think many times things can get too bogged down with politics when you try to get everyone's approval. and what makes it even more frustrating is that, in the end, the resources committed and risks taken are almost entirely the same anyways (US troops, US money) -dave
[2004-11-12 09:41:20] - pierce: hehe yeah, me too. but it happens to me a lot, unfortunately -dave
[2004-11-12 09:40:12] - grr, I hate when I use the same expression ("even harder") twice in a comment without realizing it. - pierce
[2004-11-12 09:39:45] - and in afghanistan it's even harder, because we have to adapt them from "complete subservience to a government that claims its actions as divine will", which is even harder. - pierce
[2004-11-12 09:38:14] - Contrastingly, in Iraq we have to adapt their culture from complete subservience to individualistic contribution to government. - pierce
[2004-11-12 09:37:04] - dave: and arguably, communism was closer idealogically to democracy than the arab theocracies. Communism is, after all, still a form of "rule by the people". - pierce
[2004-11-12 09:35:49] - dave: we can change our approach to the war on terror. I really think we need to stop acting unilaterally for reasons beyond pure resources. I really think the point from the article is accurate that we've made it easy to demonize america with our "lone ranger" posturing. If we have allies, we'll be represented much better. - pierce
[2004-11-12 09:32:12] - pierce: debatably better off than it was before, but not rosy by any means -dave
[2004-11-12 09:31:41] - pierce: yeah...that's quite true. Everyone thought everything was all glorious when Russia became a democracy, but look at it now -dave
[2004-11-12 09:30:14] - dave: I'll agree with you there. I'm just concerned about the likelihood of that. Culturally, Iraq is going to need an abrupt transition to accept democracy in any reasonable level, and it's complicated by the fact that it'll be hard to remain a geographic exception to the rule. - pierce
[2004-11-12 09:27:57] - pierce: at this point, with iraq and other terrorist situations, there's really not much else we can do to change things one way or another -dave
[2004-11-12 09:26:54] - pierce: tho I will say, that if Iraq becomes a prosperous 'democratic' country, it would be a huge hit for them. -dave
[2004-11-12 09:26:32] - dave: agreed. I'm kind of taking the pessimistic viewpoint as a worst-case scenario until we have more information. - pierce
[2004-11-12 09:25:50] - pierce: well, it's elementary anyways, not like we really know how their operations work, or how much they were dmged. We can only really tell with time and any future terrorist attacks that occur -dave
[2004-11-12 09:24:43] - pierce: true. tho minimal is subjective. -dave
[2004-11-12 09:24:31] - dave: okay, I may be wrong about whether we were closely involved in pakistan. Nevertheless, I assume that doesn't hold true for every arab nation, so they could just temporarily relocate their operations to another country. - pierce
[2004-11-12 09:23:15] - dave: it's one of the advantages of being such an informal operation. entire cells can be killed or captured, but the damage that does to the organization as a whole is minimal. - pierce
[2004-11-12 09:22:45] - pierce: *nod* I agree they get some benefit. It appears you just believe that it was overall better for the terrorists in the end, and I'm not quite so positive -dave
[2004-11-12 09:22:04] - pierce: well, from what I gathered from info through about during the election campaign, we indeed had/have a buncha people there when we were tracking bin laden down there -dave
[2004-11-12 09:21:58] - dave: I should make it clear that I agree with you in that our actions were probably a major hit to their operations. However, from their perspective I think it was "worth" it to set the stage for more recruitment and public sympathy. - pierce
[2004-11-12 09:20:31] - dave: I didn't think we had U.S. troops closely involved in pakistani military operations, am I wrong about that? - pierce
[2004-11-12 09:20:28] - pierce: yes, the costs are huge, but we're a huge country and they're terrorists -dave
[2004-11-12 09:20:07] - pierce: I know there's a lot of things that can be argued / debated about the situation, but in the end, it seems fairly certain that the terrorists took a hit of some sort -dave
[2004-11-12 09:19:41] - dave: that can't be good if that's the only part of the picture you're looking at, but the costs to us for taking them out were huge, both in foreign relations and in military resource committment. - pierce
[2004-11-12 09:18:31] - pierce: well, they were doing as we were saying because all the US troops /special forces were there too I believe. -dave
[2004-11-12 09:17:59] - pierce: and even if more people are recruited, it's not just a matter of people. It takes a long time for an incoming person to replace outgoing (dead) people, the person who got killed is inevitably tied up in a bunch of operations and it takes awhile to get the new people connected / familiarized / trained -dave
[2004-11-12 09:17:58] - dave: the new government, or the taliban? either way, I may be wrong but I'm not sure how much I trust their militaries to do as they're saying. We're fair-weather allies with most arab nations at best. - pierce
[2004-11-12 09:16:47] - pierce: I understand how it's an advantage when people dying helps more people join up, but it's not like a concrete formula when one dies more join. If the govt. is to be believed, we took out a vast portion of their network, that can't possibly be good no matter how you look at it. -dave
[2004-11-12 09:15:15] - Pierce: well, for one thing, didn't the afghan or pakistani govt. have all their military hunting down al-quaeda / bin laden? -dave
[2004-11-12 09:14:48] - And other than Iraq and Afghanistan, I imagine it's still relatively trivial to run terrorist activities through arab nations. - pierce
[2004-11-12 09:13:25] - as for the other challenges, the "rest of the world" besides the U.S. has always been extremely sensitive about the issue. That's why foreign airports have always have a much more visible police (or military) presence. Other countries have not changes too significantly to increase their counterterrorist measures, as far as I know. - pierce
[2004-11-12 09:11:36] - it's almost klingon-like, in a way. - pierce
[2004-11-12 09:11:07] - dave: one of the major advantages that al qaeda has is that members think that dying for their cause is a good thing. If one dead al qaeda member polarizes the world enough to bring in two new recruits, then the organization is better off and they admire the dead operative for his sacrifice. - pierce
[2004-11-12 08:51:25] - it's about time this sco case died. jesus, how long has this case been dragging on? - mig
[2004-11-12 08:42:16] - http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20041111-4394.html Novell produces "smoking gun" in SCO case. According to the meetings minutes, Novell never gave SCO rights to the Unix trademark, or rights to market and develop versions of Novell's Unixware. If Novell's evidence holds, case against them (and autozone) could be dismissed -dave
[2004-11-12 08:23:35] - now that the whole world is hyper-sensitive about the terrorist issue, it has to be much more difficult now to do anything, not to mention expending resources just to keep himself (bin laden) safe and not-captured -dave
prev <-> next