Why Iraq can't be deterred

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Think tanks hire people who's political views match with theirs. That doesn't mean that the people they hire are somehow tainted with an "agenda". I'm relatively sure that Pollack's views are actually his views, not some sort of propaganda meant to push an unknown agenda.

Where does the money come from that thinktanks hire people with?

[Felch]

I agree with Kepler. There are two ways to go with this. No conflict, or horrific brutality. If we invade it must cost Iraq hundreds of thousands of lives, not neccesarily military. Carpet bombing major cities would do just as well at showing that we are not to be messed with.

Remember that hostile forces are only willing to be hostile if they feel they are safer than their enemies. If we show that we are psychotic and unstable, and prove it by killing lots of innocent people, the terrorists will be too terrorized to respond. Brutal people understand no language except brutality.

That being said, the war shouldn't be waged, unless our hand is forced. The human price to do it right is simply too high.

[Drake Tungsten]

Where does the money come from that thinktanks hire people with?

What's your point? I'm saying that people who work in independent think tanks get paid to publish their opinions, not an opinion forced on them because of some vague agenda attributed to the think tank. It's easy to claim that someone is corrupt and therefore is not worth listening to, but I'd like to see some proof. I've seen no reason presented so far that would make me doubt Pollack's veracity.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Where does the money come from that thinktanks hire people with?

What's your point?

My point is that if Pollack consistently held opinions that the sponsors of the think thank didn't like, he'd probably be out of a job.

I'm not saying he's biased... but he certainly could be, and it bears examining before we come out and say he's certainly unbiased. There is no such thing as an 'independent' think tank. Think tanks cost money, and therefore, groups with reasonably deep pockets fund them. The TT therefore could be biased in favour of its sponsors' agenda.

[Drake Tungsten]

My point is that if Pollack consistently held opinions that the sponsors of the think thank didn't like, he'd probably be out of a job.

There's almost no chance of this happening, since think tanks make sure that they hire people whose views are compatible with the think tanks. The only way it could happen is if the employee pulled a chegitz (180 reversal in ideology, like from Republicanism to communism ).

Unless you can show me evidence that Pollack's worldview has changed drastically since he joined this particular think tank, then you don't have any basis to claim that Pollack has an "agenda". I'm a pretty cynical bastard, but even I don't think that every pundit in the world should be considered corrupt in the absence of any proof.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

My point is that if Pollack consistently held opinions that the sponsors of the think thank didn't like, he'd probably be out of a job.

There's almost no chance of this happening, since think tanks make sure that they hire people whose views are compatible with the think tanks. The only way it could happen is if the employee pulled a chegitz (180 reversal in ideology, like from Republicanism to communism ).

Unless you can show me evidence that Pollack's worldview has changed drastically since he joined this particular think tank, then you don't have any basis to claim that Pollack has an "agenda". I'm a pretty cynical bastard, but even I don't think that every pundit in the world should be considered corrupt in the absence of any proof.

You're missing my point. The reason they hired him is because he suits their agenda. What the agenda of the TT's sponsors is, I don't know. But people don't spend (hundreds of thousands? millions?) on thinktanks for nothing... so they obviously must have one.

[CyberGnu]

STYOM,

(would you prefer another acronym?)

[Drake Tungsten]

But how does the agenda of the think tank (if they have one) affect Pollack's views? If he isn't in danger of being fired for his viewpoints, then what possible effect could the agenda of his employer have on his views?

Face it, the views expressed in the piece are Pollack's views, not his employers. If you want to discredit him, then focus on his views. Don't claim that his views are being influenced by some unsubstantiated "agenda". That's akin to calling someone a "fascist" or "commie" to avoid dealing with their views...

edit: I'd watch out if I were you, Six Thousand Year Old Man. Having CyberGnu agree with you is not a good sign...

[CyberGnu]

Drake, wasn't it you who brought up the thinktank? We are merely saying that him belonging to a thinktank does not make him impartial...

As for 'branding' him, it doesn't mean we can avoid dealing with this views, but that his claims should be taken with a pinch of salt...

Having CyberGnu agree with you is not a good sign...

Ahh, that was uncalled for! It's only true if you are pro-israeli or don't believe in global warming...

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
But how does the agenda of the think tank (if they have one) affect Pollack's views? If he isn't in danger of being fired for his viewpoints, then what possible effect could the agenda of his employer have on his views?

This effect:

There's almost no chance of this happening, since think tanks make sure that they hire people whose views are compatible with the think tanks

[Drake Tungsten]

See if you can follow this, it isn't that hard:

The think tank and its agenda have no effect on Pollack's views. He had already formed his own opinions that just happened to coincide with the ideology of the think tank. They hired him because of his views. The think tank did not push their views onto Pollack; why would they have to when he already agreed with them? His views are his and his alone. No one is forcing him to have these views, so I don't see how he could be pushing any sort of agenda.

[CyberGnu]

Eh, Drake, why do you keep bringing up the thinktank? What is it you are trying to prove?

Look, I don't belong to a thinktank, right? and I certainly have an agenda when it comes to, for example, Israels occupation of Palestine.

But let's assume that a pro-palestinian think tanks decides to hire me. Would my views change? Of course not. Would my agenda change? Of course not. The only thing that changes is that I would get paid to think about way to end Israels occupation, instead of avoiding my real job in order to do so.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Saddam appeasers,

What Saddam appeasers? Oppoistion to Bushie's war isn't the same thing as appeasement.

[Drake Tungsten]

I wouldn't say that you have an agenda. You have your own strong opinions, but I don't think that you have any ulterior motive for having the views you do. As much as I disagree with your views, I would never say that you have an agenda and that I consequently doubt your veracity.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
I mean, it is common knowledge that all jews think alike, right?

Well come on, after all, every Jew that's critical of Israel is a self-hating Jew.

I love you guys (Israeli Apolytoners). Just try and keep your head down when Bush starts his war. Saddam will definately attack Israel since he knows the he's going down.