"truth" is a pseudo fiction that can be told in many different ways.
This is why it is critical to keep informed and keep an open mind. Truth in it's purest sense is actual reality. But we do get our information through filtered sources, and the mass media is driven by ad revenues. Sensationalism sells. Be careful what you hold to be "true" - it changes as our information changes. Twenty years from now we might find out Stormbringer was right - I doubt it, but it could happen.
Both events were political attempts to sway public opinion towards what the politician wants
That's called politics, and it has always worked that way. The problem is that voters are becoming less and less informed.
The best example I can give of this for modern times is hot fusion vs. cold fusion. Mainstream scientists who have 'written the book' on hot fusion have solidified their position, their funding, and their careers by being the most knowledgeable on the subject. Now a couple of scientists, upstarts if you wish to call them that, come along and propose a new and radical concept, cold fusion. The benefits of this new technology far outweigh traditional fusion but there's a problem. If these scientists are allowed to follow through on their 'idea' they will show that 'hot fusion' is no longer needed, thus putting those scientists who 'wrote the book' out of funding, out of work, and out of the respect and admiration of their peers. Do you really think that those scientists would allow this? No.
You are right. New, radical ideas are often discredited. Look at Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin, and Einstein. But be careful here. Not all discredited ideas are valid. I think I remember cold fusion being proven impossible since it was based on flawed science. Is it really impossible? I don't know - I'm not a physicist. But be careful with your logic.
greater fuel efficience in cars has been around a long time, but the oil comoppanies are able to lobby to keep those technologies down. Alternate fules should have been looked into 30 years ago when we had the oil crisis. By now we wouldnt be looking to iraq and kuwait and the rest. When poeple stop buying their oil I wonder how tough they'll talk. You can't eat oil.
Absolutely true. We have brought this crisis on ourselves. I think that the best thing we could do is to put a national $1 per gallon gas tax into effect, and use that money more alternate fuel research & development. That would really push conservation. Once we stop buying oil the Middle East is irrelevant. But supporting such a tax would be political suicide.
Gentlemen, think about this. In one sense, the war in Vietnam was a waste of human life. But in another sense it may have saved the world. The two superpowers used Vietnam as a Cold War surrogate battlefield instead of launching missles at each other. I think we had to take some action to stop Soviet expansionism. Was Vietnam appropriate? Well, look at where we are now. The USSR splintered into a group of smaller states because they couldn't continue to expend the economic effort needed to keep up with us in the Cold War. So, in a sense, Vietnam lead to a American victory.
...Oh, I can just hear Stormbringer's keyboard clacking away...
So it is possible that our efforts in Iraq will lead to a positive outcome in ten years.
Not why we invaded? When our troops can be safe again? What did we do wrong initially? I think even the worst sceptic can see the possible answers to that. but why has it gone so wrong? Why do the Iraqi's hate the occupation of their country? If it's for their own good. and the inevitability of this country being torn apart.
All I see is incompetence and a total disregard for the middle east that almost invites rebellion.
We invaded Iraq in response to what we perceived (it's debateable, I know) as a clear and present danger in response to a threat. I think that was the right choice. The problem is how to get out. If ethnic groups want to destroy each other there is no real answer. The problem is that these groups of thugs are sitting on the resource that drives the world's economy, oil. And if we let the thugs have the oil money we might wind up with a worse leader than Saddam Hussein, so we are trying to create a stable government. That may be impossible.
We didn't topple Saddam the first time because we were only trying to liberate Kuwait and that is what we did. After we kicked his tail the first time we thought he couldn't be that dumb again.
Why do the Iraqis hate the occupation? I think they hate each other more than they hate us and we just get in the way. The suicide bombers are blowing up markets and bridges, not just US soldiers.
And as for a total disregard for the Middle East, well you're right. We just don't understand that mindset at all, and I don't think I want to. The way to end the suicide bombers is to provide them with a stable government and hope for a future. If they can't help govern themselves then we leave and they destroy themselves.
"We had to destroy the village to secure it". And we wonder why the world hates us?
But who else will set up and try to change the situation?
You know, a interesting, intelligent political debate sure beats what else I had planned for work today. Happy Friday!
