Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-18-2010, 08:48 PM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default Bomb Iran? (Flynt Leverett & Reuel Gerecht)

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-18-2010, 10:02 PM
opposable_crumbs opposable_crumbs is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 504
Default Re: Bomb Iran? (Flynt Leverett & Reuel Gerecht)

Thanks Reuel for the earache and lingering sense of de ja vue. Thanks Flynt for your patience.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-18-2010, 10:18 PM
Fuquier Fuquier is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 9
Default Re: Bomb Iran? (Flynt Leverett & Reuel Gerecht)

Reuel seems to think that guaranteeing the outcome of a hypothetical event in his favor is an argument. He did it a number of times. Argumentum ad promissor?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-18-2010, 10:21 PM
opposable_crumbs opposable_crumbs is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 504
Default Covert actions against Iran

I was a little surprised that Reuel claimed that US backed operations against Iran where a myth, as Seymour Hersh covered the Bush backed programme in 2008. Of course it's impossible to say what the scope of nature of the programme is, so Reuel may well be right, though it is an issue which scarcely gets mentioned.


Quote:
Among groups inside Iran benefiting from U.S. support is the Jundallah, also known as the Iranian People's Resistance Movement, according to former CIA officer Robert Baer. Council on Foreign Relations analyst Vali Nasr described it to Hersh as a vicious organization suspected of links to al Qaeda.
source: Reuters

Quote:
However, the CIA is giving arms-length support, supplying money and weapons, to an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, which has conducted raids into Iran from bases in Pakistan
source: Daily Telegraph
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-18-2010, 11:59 PM
chamblee54 chamblee54 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 319
Default Re: Bomb Iran? (Flynt Leverett & Reuel Gerecht)

In addition to being a most rude and unpleasant person, Mr. Gerecht contradicts himself. He says highly inflammatory things about the Iranian regime, then says that we don't demonize them.
A few points need to be made. After a bloody war with Iraq, repeated saber rattling by Israel, and sharing borders with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the Soviet Stans ( who might have a few bombs also), can anyone blame Iran for wanting nuclear protection?
Mr. Gerecht says that the Kurds and Shiites of Iraq think the Babylon war has been a cool deal. He might have added that Iran has benefited from this war.
One other thing that few are saying out loud. If Israel is fighting Iran, they can ignore the Palestinians. This may not be the primary reason for their saber rattling, but it is a very convenient side benefit.
In the previous diavlog, Mickey Kaus was discussing whether $750 a day to extend a person's life was worthwhile. Here, Israel is pondering whether a million dead Persian civilians and $300 a barrel oil justifies maintaining the Israeli nuclear monopoly for three years.
chamblee54
__________________
Chamblee54

Last edited by chamblee54; 08-19-2010 at 12:11 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-19-2010, 07:57 AM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Bomb Iran? (Flynt Leverett & Reuel Gerecht)

I am not sure there have ever been a group of ten more more illustrious, illustrative, and/or vlog alluring comments ever posted here.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-19-2010, 12:12 AM
Ken Davis Ken Davis is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Western Appalachia
Posts: 193
Default Re: Bomb Iran? (Flynt Leverett & Reuel Gerecht)

Gerecht puts me in mind of Frank's line in Blue Velvet: "I'll fuck anything that MOOooves!"
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-19-2010, 03:08 AM
grits-n-gravy grits-n-gravy is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 431
Default Re: Bomb Iran? (Flynt Leverett & Reuel Gerecht)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Davis View Post
Gerecht puts me in mind of Frank's line in Blue Velvet: "I'll fuck anything that MOOooves!"
Are you sure Redd Foxx didn't coin that? lol!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-19-2010, 02:00 AM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default I would love to believe....

that there are only two people even remotely plugged into US foreign policy as war-crazed as Gerecht and John Bolton (Bolton just warned Israel it had three days in which to attack Iran).

I would also love to believe that the ideology that spawned the Iraq War was dead and buried with a stake through its heart, and that we could never even dream of another debacle as hideous and murderous.

But more realistically one would have to suppose that Reuel's position is, if not in amplified form or amply represented, at least "on the table" at the CIA, the Pentagon, the NSC and throughout the "intelligence community."

Since it's a safe bet that the Gerechts and Boltons have very little juice with Obama, the neo-con wish must be that Netanyahu and his enabler Barak will do something crazy enough to drag our Barack (presumably kicking and screaming) into a war with Iran.

It could happen.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-19-2010, 05:28 AM
Plinthy The Middling Plinthy The Middling is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 63
Default Re: I would love to believe....

Besides all the boorish over-talking, air-time-and-face-space-hogging, and the routine stepping on lines (eg when Leverett raised that HIS source on the circumstances of the break-off of talks in 2003 between the Bush administration and the Iranian government of that day might be more credible than that of Gerecht, given Leverett‘s wife was actually a member of the U.S. negotiation team), Gerecht repeatedly used the phrase “our former employer“ and also kept providing self-serving references to his CIA past. All that seemed an artifice aimed at securing the two heads to the same block. So, I went looking into their respective biographies on the intertubes.

There is no contest, in several respects:

1. Biographical material on Leverett is readily retrievable and a lot more transparent -- albeit assisted by that of Gerecht being strikingly limited, defensive even (Note how he opened the discussion.).

2. Leverett appears to be a true academic, whose standing in that regard seems to have been what got him into government service. The little bit of background on Gerecht strongly suggests HIS government service was as a member of what is fairly well-known as “Team B“, whose members were embedded, mostly in the State Department, the DoD and the CIA, through the efforts and influence of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and their long connections to such neocon organizations as the PNAC (where Gerecht hung his toque through the Clinton years), with the role of ensuring that the Bush administration had a supply of directed-but-substantially-unverifiable intelligence to fit into policy. This http://tiny.cc/e0pow for example links Gerecht to Michael Ledeen, deeply implicated in the Niger yellowcake con.

3. Paradoxically, that last distinction would suggest Gerecht as maybe more reliable in terms of what we can expect. Both these t-heads are out of current fashion and touch with the Obama administration; the question is which of them is more likely to be enabled into influence in the future. I should think that would pretty obviously be Gerecht. The chances of a Republican administration from 2012 are looking stronger as the economy looks more likely to continue to die; and if not then, then from 2016; and I would like to know of even one viable Republican candidate for the presidency in the next two cycles who would even try to resist the return of the neocons.

Finally, it seems odd that BH.TV would go into the lagoon looking to dredge up this creature, rather than just make a friendly call over to msm-approved Atlantic Monthly to get the obviously better, certainly way hotter, choice du jour to defend Bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran, Jeffrey Goldberg. I wonder if Goldberg was in the plan, then bowed out late, and someone somehow ‘arranged‘ for Gerecht as a cut-out (again: that opening to effect of all we viewers need to know; and yes the idea of an oblique still-with-the-CIA swipe occurred to me, but no I would not buy it).
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-19-2010, 08:43 AM
Simon Willard Simon Willard is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The sylvan exurbs west of Boston Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,328
Default Re: I would love to believe....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
that there are only two people even remotely plugged into US foreign policy as war-crazed as Gerecht and John Bolton (Bolton just warned Israel it had three days in which to attack Iran).
Bolton's statement strikes me less as the ravings of a hawk, than as a capitulation. He has decided Iran will indeed get the bomb, despite his years of statements that this could never happen. By laying down this three-day deadline (sort of silly, if you think about it) he is trying to protect his legacy. He won't have to be a hawk anymore. He can simply say "we missed our chance. I told you to do it early, when it would have been easy".
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-19-2010, 02:29 AM
grits-n-gravy grits-n-gravy is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 431
Default Re: Bomb Iran? (Flynt Leverett & Reuel Gerecht)

You gotta love the way these neocons get worked up over Iran. Anyone read Juan Cole's critique of Jeffrey Goldberg's shameless propaganda piece?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-19-2010, 08:17 AM
thprop thprop is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 373
Default STOP THIS PROPAGANDA!!!!!

It is almost hard to believe that these people - Gerecht and his ilk, the neocons more generally - are so shameless and brazen. They want war with Iran and are determined to push the US into it. They lie, fabricate, deceive - basically throw anything against the wall they think will advance their cause. They did it to launch the Iraq war and are at it again.

And for no good reason. It is clearly on behalf of a part of the Israeli political spectrum. But even why those in Israel want war makes no sense to me. Has Israel become such a militarized and martial society that it knows of no other way to exist?

The get useful dupes like Jeffrey Goldberg to spread their message. Why should Goldberg have any credibility in this country? He does not have dual loyalty - his first and primary loyalty is to Israel. He elected to leave this country and serve in the Israeli military. It did not occur to him to join the US military. He is an Israeli whose US citizenship is there for comfort and a better life.

Diavlogs like this one are not some meaningful discussions on important matters. They are part of a propaganda campaign to push the US into war on behalf of a crazed Israel.
__________________
Even a blind man knows when the sun is shining, he can feel it.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-19-2010, 10:15 PM
opposable_crumbs opposable_crumbs is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 504
Default Re: STOP THIS PROPAGANDA!!!!!

I found Reuel to be pretty shameless. After all he blasts Flynt for not championing the Green movement, despite the fact that so far Flynt's scepticism seems to have been borne out, but shows not the smallest hint of remorse or reflection on his own cheer leading for a war which has left thousands of Iraqis dead.

But sadly, tragically even, he and his fellow neocons are still part of the debate and as such I'm glad that his views, vapid and as hollow as they are, are put up here for scrutiny. There will be no shortage of news networks who will echo his talking points without such examination.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-19-2010, 09:06 AM
harkin harkin is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,169
Default Re: Bomb Iran? (Flynt Leverett & Reuel Gerecht)

Wow - so much hate for Reuel. Then I listen to the dialogue where he completely schools Flynt on Iran. No wonder.

The money shot(s) was Flynt's cluelessness on Iranian Jewish refugees, implying not only that the shooting down of the Iranian commercial jet by the US Navy was intentional but that the real culpability for the Hobart Towers terrorist attack rests with the US Congress...............how has this guy not been hired by the White House?

Great dialogue as an illusration of willfully blind appeasement v common sense.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-19-2010, 12:42 PM
opposable_crumbs opposable_crumbs is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 504
Default Re: Bomb Iran? (Flynt Leverett & Reuel Gerecht)

The recession must be biting if that qualifies as a money shot.

I thought Reuel's coda, that the Iraq invasion has left the middle east in much better shape, was far more telling. It's largely down to the Iraq war that options regarding Iran are so limited.

The Iraq war has been a success for the neocons in one sense - they are still somehow taken seriously. This is despite, certainly in Reuel's case, becoming lazier with regards to evidence and strategy.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-20-2010, 07:48 AM
Ken Davis Ken Davis is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Western Appalachia
Posts: 193
Default Re: Bomb Iran? (Flynt Leverett & Reuel Gerecht)

Quote:
Originally Posted by harkin View Post
Wow - so much hate for Reuel.
Why use the term "hate" as a synonym for "disagreement", "criticism" or even "condemnation"? It's become a part of popular culture these days - "don't hate on me" - but it's lazy usage, and a buzz word in a political context.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-20-2010, 09:58 AM
Diane1976 Diane1976 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 333
Default Re: Bomb Iran? (Flynt Leverett & Reuel Gerecht)

I'm quite sure the Navy didn't shoot down a civilian plane on purpose. Who knows why they did but they probably were full of beliefs and expectations about evil Iranians. However, I certainly wouldn't blame anybody for not buying the US government explanation or being disgusted by its response.

"When questioned in a 2000 BBC documentary, the US government stated in a written answer that they believed the incident may have been caused by a simultaneous psychological condition amongst the 18 bridge crew of the Vincennes called 'scenario fulfillment', which is said to occur when persons are under pressure. In such a situation, the men will carry out a training scenario, believing it to be reality while ignoring sensory information that contradicts the scenario. In the case of this incident, the scenario was an attack by a lone military aircraft."

The US government issued notes of regret for the loss of human lives and in 1996 paid reparations to settle a suit brought in the International Court of Justice regarding the incident. The United States government never admitted wrongdoing, nor apologized for the incident. In August 1988 Newsweek quoted the vice president George Bush as saying "I'll never apologize for the United States of America. Ever, I don't care what the facts are."
(Wikipedia)
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-19-2010, 09:17 AM
Simon Willard Simon Willard is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The sylvan exurbs west of Boston Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,328
Default Avoiding the issue

thprop's criticism of this particular diavlog has some merit, but any criticism of bhTV would be misplaced. This is an important subject worthy of discussion.

No one, no one on either side of the debate, dares to broach the real issue, which is not about Iran or Israel. Unchecked proliferation threatens the existence of liberal democracy.

Last edited by Simon Willard; 08-19-2010 at 09:22 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-19-2010, 10:12 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Avoiding the issue

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Willard View Post
Unchecked proliferation threatens the existence of liberal democracy.
You don't know what you've lost 'til it's gone.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-19-2010, 11:30 AM
hamandcheese hamandcheese is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 48
Send a message via Skype™ to hamandcheese
Default Re: Bomb Iran? (Flynt Leverett & Reuel Gerecht)

Kagan, Kristol, and now Gerecht. Why are all the people here in favour of bombing Iran also fatheaded bullies? I feel like they're the exact same people I would have hated and mocked in highschool.

Flynt makes the rational case very well and accurately. You get a sense of intellectual honesty from Flynt that you don't from Gerecht (perhaps because, as has been mentioned, Flynt is an academic and Gerecht is rugged freedom warrior).

There's a knowledge problem here, on the matter of "what are the outcomes of an airstrike" wherein the knowledge we have does not merit Gerecht conclusion - and if it does, no where near his level of confidence - such that Gerecht either a) has an ulterior, ideological motive b) knows something we don't c) simply doesn't understand how to evaluate evidence. I believe it's a combination of a) and c).

I oppose an airstrike for two simple reasons: I believe Iran's nuclear program is for energy and defence, not aggression; and supposing we did bomb Iran, the geo-political domino effect that would cause is not just unknown, but unknowable. People who think its a good idea to do a strike are effectively asking us to jump into a dark unknown. That's irresponsible.
__________________
Abstract Minutiae blog

Last edited by hamandcheese; 08-19-2010 at 12:00 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-19-2010, 09:01 PM
Alexandrite Alexandrite is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 125
Default Re: Bomb Iran? (Flynt Leverett & Reuel Gerecht)

Quote:
Originally Posted by hamandcheese View Post
I oppose an airstrike for two simple reasons: I believe Iran's nuclear program is for energy and defence, not aggression; and supposing we did bomb Iran, the geo-political domino effect that would cause is not just unknown, but unknowable. People who think its a good idea to do a strike are effectively asking us to jump into a dark unknown. That's irresponsible.
Quote:
Leela: "So after I specifically asked you not to touch anything, you drank a bottle of strange blue liquid? It could've been poisonous acid!"
Fry: "It could've been, but chances were equally good it was an emperor."
I really don't think either side can claim to have better futuresight on this one.

Doves: If we do nothing, things might stay the same, or they might get worse. But if they do get worse, that is an outcome we're prepared to live with.
Hawks: If we do something, things might get better, or they might stay the same, or they might get worse. But you've already ceded that you're willing to accept some level of probability for future bad outcomes if we do nothing, why aren't you willing to roll the die for a chance of a better outcome.

There is some unknown probability X, for which by doing nothing, bad outcomes emerge. There is some unknown probability Y that by bombing bad outcomes will occur. This is contrasted with some positive, not insignificant chance Z that a positive outcome comes from bombing.

You have a *hunch* that Z is small, and Y is really big compared to X, but you can't prove it.

The problem is that when faced with a strategic situation like this, unless you can provide more evidence that Y is super big, and X is super small, it is rational and valid to propose that you play like the one out you have is going to happen. You play to win, even if the chances are small. If Z is the only positive outcome of the scenario, you play like Z is going to happen.

This is a valid argument and very convincing in face of unknowns. Leverett in this case has a much higher burden of proof then he thinks he does. I know what I would argue here in his case, but he doesn't make the case. Gerecht even tried to preempt the argument (would you have supported bombing...), because he thought Leverett was going to make it, but Leverett doesn't.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-19-2010, 09:18 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Bomb Iran? (Flynt Leverett & Reuel Gerecht)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexandrite View Post
I really don't think either side can claim to have better futuresight on this one.

Doves: If we do nothing, things might stay the same, or they might get worse. But if they do get worse, that is an outcome we're prepared to live with.
Hawks: If we do something, things might get better, or they might stay the same, or they might get worse. But you've already ceded that you're willing to accept some level of probability for future bad outcomes if we do nothing, why aren't you willing to roll the die for a chance of a better outcome.

There is some unknown probability X, for which by doing nothing, bad outcomes emerge. There is some unknown probability Y that by bombing bad outcomes will occur. This is contrasted with some positive, not insignificant chance Z that a positive outcome comes from bombing.

You have a *hunch* that Z is small, and Y is really big compared to X, but you can't prove it.

The problem is that when faced with a strategic situation like this, unless you can provide more evidence that Y is super big, and X is super small, it is rational and valid to propose that you play like the one out you have is going to happen. You play to win, even if the chances are small. If Z is the only positive outcome of the scenario, you play like Z is going to happen.

This is a valid argument and very convincing in face of unknowns. Leverett in this case has a much higher burden of proof then he thinks he does. I know what I would argue here in his case, but he doesn't make the case. Gerecht even tried to preempt the argument (would you have supported bombing...), because he thought Leverett was going to make it, but Leverett doesn't.
I strongly approve of trying to find appropriate wisdom for any situation in Futurama dialogue. But I'm pretty sure you missed or underestimated a few variables in your analysis. Such as: the number of people directly endangered by the sort of military action being imagined here; the inevitable regional instability it would almost certainly create; the degree to which such an action would strengthen the Mullahs and the current Iranian regime in general; the possibility that such an action provides a new, powerful cassus belli among Islamic radicals, and the degree to which it would provide an imoetus toward further radicalization. I wouldn't take your bet, and I hope Netanyahu isn't stupid enough to do so, either. (But, regarding Netanyahu, I have little faith in that last.)
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-19-2010, 10:52 PM
Alexandrite Alexandrite is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 125
Default Re: Bomb Iran? (Flynt Leverett & Reuel Gerecht)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
I strongly approve of trying to find appropriate wisdom for any situation in Futurama dialogue. But I'm pretty sure you missed or underestimated a few variables in your analysis. Such as: the number of people directly endangered by the sort of military action being imagined here; the inevitable regional instability it would almost certainly create; the degree to which such an action would strengthen the Mullahs and the current Iranian regime in general; the possibility that such an action provides a new, powerful cassus belli among Islamic radicals, and the degree to which it would provide an imoetus toward further radicalization. I wouldn't take your bet, and I hope Netanyahu isn't stupid enough to do so, either. (But, regarding Netanyahu, I have little faith in that last.)
Think of the decision trees being presented like this:
Don't Bomb Iran: No Outcome / Bad Outcome
Bomb Iran: Good Outcome / No Outcome / Bad Outcome

A critique of the hawks is that the Doves are willing to play a game with scenario of not bombing: You can have no outcome or bad outcome, and that's OK, but are unwilling to consider scenario B, which also has the possibility of neutral and bad outcomes, but ALSO is the only scenario in which you can 'win'. Given that all probability of all events is unknown you should only consider the events with possibilities of winning, even if that likelihood is small.

There is a flaw in the hawks judgement of this, but it's not addressed.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-20-2010, 03:16 AM
JonIrenicus JonIrenicus is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,606
Default Re: Bomb Iran? (Flynt Leverett & Reuel Gerecht)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexandrite View Post
Think of the decision trees being presented like this:
Don't Bomb Iran: No Outcome / Bad Outcome
Bomb Iran: Good Outcome / No Outcome / Bad Outcome

A critique of the hawks is that the Doves are willing to play a game with scenario of not bombing: You can have no outcome or bad outcome, and that's OK, but are unwilling to consider scenario B, which also has the possibility of neutral and bad outcomes, but ALSO is the only scenario in which you can 'win'. Given that all probability of all events is unknown you should only consider the events with possibilities of winning, even if that likelihood is small.

There is a flaw in the hawks judgement of this, but it's not addressed.
The flaw is that in the bombing scenario the "bad outcome" could also turn out to be a "worse outcome"

Is the good outcome enough to outweigh the possibility of the worse outcome?

Hawks are more likely to think yes in a given case than a dove or so called realist (dove nick name).


Once that position is locked in due to the personal character of the person, the rest is spin. The hawk seeks to highlight and exaggerate the bad of the status quo, as well as the possibility of even worse scenarios of inaction.


The doves of course seek to damp the bad of the status quo, we saw a ton of that from Flynt here. They also seek to minimize the worse outcomes of inaction and in some cases argue that action in and of itself could only lead to worse action.


Neither take is a sterile analysis of the facts and probabilities. But for my part, I can't bring myself to be quite so cynical about better outcomes to ever be a card carrying dove like Flynt. And I hope I never get to such a nihilistic amoral view of the world and public policy.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-20-2010, 11:17 AM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Bomb Iran? (Flynt Leverett & Reuel Gerecht)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonIrenicus View Post
The flaw is that in the bombing scenario the "bad outcome" could also turn out to be a "worse outcome"

Is the good outcome enough to outweigh the possibility of the worse outcome?
That's one flaw. Another flaw (not the only additional one) is framing the question as if there are only two possibilities -- bomb and don't bomb -- with all else equal. There's also "do X," "do Y," and so on. Some of those things could be done as well as bombing, some not (or with a lower chance of them working). If something thinks there's a possibility for a good result due to doing some of these other things, bombing may preclude this possible good result.

It's really ridiculous to insist upon a binary view of the discussion, right down to classifying people as "hawks" or "doves" and insisting that what they think is entirely determined by that. For the vast majority of people (including, I am sure, Reuel and Flynt), whether they want to use force or not depends on the circumstances.

Quote:
Neither take is a sterile analysis of the facts and probabilities. But for my part, I can't bring myself to be quite so cynical about better outcomes to ever be a card carrying dove like Flynt. And I hope I never get to such a nihilistic amoral view of the world and public policy.
Insisting that looking at the facts and seeing the result from using force as not positive in a particular case does not make one amoral (I'm curious what you mean by this term, as you seem to be using it oddly -- systems are amoral, not sure what an amoral view would be in the sense it's being applied) or nihilistic.

You are trying to avoid the hard questions by putting these value judgments on them. Well, yeah, in hypothetical case X it appears that a war would lead to bad consequences. But there's a 1% chance it could miraculously lead to something good and, well, I'm a DOER who CARES. Even if this made sense -- which it does not -- it is not how anyone in the government looks at it or ever has, it does not explain our military engagements in any useful way, and thus is hardly makes sense as a way to define people as "hawks" or "doves." As for the idealistic point, perhaps what people arguing against military action in a particular case prefer is to look for some strategy other than immediately defaulting to military action by the US. That's perhaps idealistic (I think true pacifists -- which most of the people you are talking about aren't -- are idealists, not nihilists), but no more idealistic than your justification for military action.

Last edited by stephanie; 08-20-2010 at 11:21 AM.. Reason: typos
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-27-2010, 12:03 PM
Gilbert Garza Gilbert Garza is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: El Paso, Texas
Posts: 7
Default Re: Bomb Iran? (Flynt Leverett & Reuel Gerecht)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
I strongly approve of trying to find appropriate wisdom for any situation in Futurama dialogue. But I'm pretty sure you missed or underestimated a few variables in your analysis. Such as: the number of people directly endangered by the sort of military action being imagined here; the inevitable regional instability it would almost certainly create; the degree to which such an action would strengthen the Mullahs and the current Iranian regime in general; the possibility that such an action provides a new, powerful cassus belli among Islamic radicals, and the degree to which it would provide an imoetus toward further radicalization. I wouldn't take your bet, and I hope Netanyahu isn't stupid enough to do so, either. (But, regarding Netanyahu, I have little faith in that last.)
Knowing the variables is insufficient without a strategic historical context, and without considering appropriate local, regional, and global strategies. I am disappointed at how little influence the writings of Robert Wright (and Thomas P.M. Barnett) have had on this blog communnity. I know. I'm going.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-19-2010, 12:03 PM
ohreally ohreally is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 666
Default Re: Bomb Iran? (Flynt Leverett & Reuel Gerecht)

I see the censors are hard at work this morning. On BHtv, the sensitivities of thugs who incite mass murder receive protection. Good to know.

Hannah Arendt had a nice phrase for such people.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-19-2010, 12:44 PM
Florian Florian is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,118
Default Re: Bomb Iran? (Flynt Leverett & Reuel Gerecht)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohreally View Post
I see the censors are hard at work this morning. On BHtv, the sensitivities of thugs who incite mass murder receive protection. Good to know.

Hannah Arendt had a nice phrase for such people.
Was your post censored? I read it this morning and now it is gone. I thought it rather amusing, and spot on. If it was in fact censored, bhtv is an even shittier forum than is evident from some of the shitheads who are invited to speak here.

Gerecht ist ungerecht.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-19-2010, 02:21 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Bomb Iran? (Flynt Leverett & Reuel Gerecht)

Quote:
Gerecht ist ungerecht.
You mean Bob or Reuel?
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 08-19-2010, 01:41 PM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default Re: Bomb Iran? (Flynt Leverett & Reuel Gerecht)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohreally View Post
I see the censors are hard at work this morning. On BHtv, the sensitivities of thugs who incite mass murder receive protection. Good to know.

Hannah Arendt had a nice phrase for such people.
What did you say?
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-19-2010, 12:58 PM
brucds brucds is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 940
Default Re: Bomb Iran? (Flynt Leverett & Reuel Gerecht)

XXXXXXXXXX


Comment self-censored. So the elves can have time to go get a cup of coffee.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-19-2010, 01:02 PM
brucds brucds is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 940
Default Re: Bomb Iran? (Flynt Leverett & Reuel Gerecht)

Why not just let Gerecht himself destroy his credibility:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20010514.htm
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-21-2010, 12:11 PM
hamandcheese hamandcheese is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 48
Send a message via Skype™ to hamandcheese
Default Re: Bomb Iran? (Flynt Leverett & Reuel Gerecht)

Quote:
Originally Posted by brucds View Post
Why not just let Gerecht himself destroy his credibility:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20010514.htm
The key quotation is here:

"[Saddam] has unceasingly sought weapons of mass destruction, and will in all likelihood have a nuclear bomb within a few years."

Replace Saddam with Khamenei and nothings different. Indeed, it reads exactly as his Iran piece for the WS. Gerecht's crystal ball isn't just opacic. It's reflective.
__________________
Abstract Minutiae blog
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-21-2010, 12:59 PM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Bomb Iran? (Flynt Leverett & Reuel Gerecht)

Quote:
Originally Posted by hamandcheese View Post
The key quotation is here:

"[Saddam] has unceasingly sought weapons of mass destruction, and will in all likelihood have a nuclear bomb within a few years."

Replace Saddam with Khamenei and nothings different. Indeed, it reads exactly as his Iran piece for the WS. Gerecht's crystal ball isn't just opacic. It's reflective.
Oh come on Mr. Sandwich...So you do not think Saddam "sought" WMDs? Or is it Gerecht's repeating the same quote heard uttered by Clinton, and democratic leaders around the same time, the thing that cuts your crusts? But I guess if simplistic parallels are all you got...

[added] and not to go Okeefe on you but I think the word you are searching for is opaque.

Last edited by Whatfur; 08-21-2010 at 01:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-21-2010, 03:57 PM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: Bomb Iran? (Flynt Leverett & Reuel Gerecht)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatfur View Post
Oh come on Mr. Sandwich...So you do not think Saddam "sought" WMDs?
No, Saddam didn't. That's why there weren't any WMD's in Iraq. This whole conversation is just blowing my mind. To hear the way war supporters are discussing this, it's as if the Iraq War never happened at all.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-22-2010, 07:10 PM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Bomb Iran? (Flynt Leverett & Reuel Gerecht)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Zeko View Post
No, Saddam didn't. That's why there weren't any WMD's in Iraq. This whole conversation is just blowing my mind. To hear the way war supporters are discussing this, it's as if the Iraq War never happened at all.
Your response is so inane in its logical ineptness I won't bother with a response here except to suggest you talk to the Kurds and or maybe read up on "Chemical Ali"
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 08-22-2010, 07:18 PM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: Bomb Iran? (Flynt Leverett & Reuel Gerecht)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Zeko View Post
No, Saddam didn't. That's why there weren't any WMD's in Iraq. This whole conversation is just blowing my mind. To hear the way war supporters are discussing this, it's as if the Iraq War never happened at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatfur View Post
Your response is so inane in its logical ineptness I won't bother with a response here except to suggest you talk to the Kurds and or maybe read up on "Chemical Ali"
Did ya ever envision it coming to this when you were the captain of the debate team at Davidson?
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 08-23-2010, 01:25 AM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: Bomb Iran? (Flynt Leverett & Reuel Gerecht)

Quote:
Originally Posted by graz View Post
Did ya ever envision it coming to this when you were the captain of the debate team at Davidson?
Oddly enough, Davidson doesn't have a debate team. In fact, it's pretty slim pickings there for academic competition in general. There's a Mock Trial team and a very casual Quiz Bowl team, and nothing else that I was aware of. I suppose that comes from having a small student body. But if it did have one, I'm sure I would have joined. So I hope that hypothetical me would have been aware of the idiots out there that persist in believing demonstrably untrue things, but can never really be sure that my hypothetical self would have been.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 08-23-2010, 08:07 AM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Bomb Iran? (Flynt Leverett & Reuel Gerecht)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Zeko View Post
Oddly enough, Davidson doesn't have a debate team. In fact, it's pretty slim pickings there for academic competition in general. There's a Mock Trial team and a very casual Quiz Bowl team, and nothing else that I was aware of. I suppose that comes from having a small student body. But if it did have one, I'm sure I would have joined. So I hope that hypothetical me would have been aware of the idiots out there that persist in believing demonstrably untrue things, but can never really be sure that my hypothetical self would have been.
So the Kurds were not really gassed? Chemical Ali was a janitor or something? WMDs are not restricted to nuclear and seeking is not finding. If you think Saddam did not wish to enhance his arsenal then I have a mock duck to sell you to go along with your hypothetical brain.
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.