Why Iraq can't be deterred

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Felch X
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.

Actually, the opposite is true. They will feel they have no other option but to wage terror against us as it is the only way to hurt us. It's why Palestine uses terror against Israel, they have no other way to fight.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by 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.

Except that if Pollack didn't share their agenda/views, they wouldn't have hired him, as you stated a few hours ago.

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.

Well, not quite. They're his and the think tank's, as you said a few hours ago, and in the second sentence of the quote above. See it?

No one is forcing him to have these views, so I don't see how he could be pushing any sort of agenda.

He may (I'm not sure - but then, you can't be sure he isn't, either) be pushing the agenda that he holds in common with the sponsors of the TT. C'mon now, do you seriously think that the people who fund think tanks do it out of some altruistic quest for knowledge? Bull****. They spend that kind of money to make a point, to get their agenda out.

Think tanks are another form of lobby group. No sponsor's going to hire a TT to put out a study that sharply conflicts with the sponsor's interest.

Now, you see if you can read your own post that I earlier quoted, and follow the logic.

[CyberGnu]

Drake, I think we differ in our interpretation of the word agenda.

The webster dictionary defines 'agenda' as an underlying often ideological plan or program

In Pollacks case it is to foster Israel-US relations, and one of the ways of doing that is to advocate for a war with Iraq. Could also be that he believes taking out Iraq furthers Israel survival, irrespective of US actions.

See what I mean?

[Drake Tungsten]

In Pollacks case it is to foster Israel-US relations, and one of the ways of doing that is to advocate for a war with Iraq. Could also be that he believes taking out Iraq furthers Israel survival, irrespective of US actions.

Where did this come from? I've seen no evidence that Pollack has any sort of plan that he is pushing. He's just giving his opinion, not pushing an agenda.

[CyberGnu]

Damn, edited the post while typing, and deleted the wrong part...

I meant to write 'possible agendas'. We don't know for sure exactly why he is writing what he is writing.

Of course, Kepler might have read other pieces of Pollack. I haven't, so I can;t say.

But none of the things you wrote in rebuttal to Kepler actually rebuts his claim. Whether he is part of a think tank or not doesn;t matter. Only his own political ideals do.

The best answer to Kepler would have been to Kepler to substantiate, or at least explain the foundation of his statement. Does that make it clearer?

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man C'mon now, do you seriously think that the people who fund think tanks do it out of some altruistic quest for knowledge? Bull****. They spend that kind of money to make a point, to get their agenda out.

Think tanks are another form of lobby group. No sponsor's going to hire a TT to put out a study that sharply conflicts with the sponsor's interest.

I think that you need to do some research on what independent think tanks actually do. The majority of them are not anything like lobby groups, but are more similar to academic institutions. Would you say that a professor at a university has an agenda if he publishes a paper supporting an attack on Iraq? I would sure hope not. The same standard applies to Pollack's piece. It's his view of the situation, nothing more, nothing less.

[Drake Tungsten]

I understand what you're saying, CyberGnu. I was asking Kepler to substantiate his claim, in my own roundabout fashion.

The only reason I brought up the think tank was because I have a very hard time thinking of reasons for a think tank employee to be pushing an agenda. No matter what you guys think, think tanks are usually pretty detached from the issues they deal with. Pollack's job isn't dependent on how well he pushes a set of talking points, like a government official would be. He also isn't beholden to any business interests that have interests in a war with Iraq (unless he has a crapload of stock or something, but I don't have any way to know this). Think tank members tend to be ivory tower intellectual types and I have a hard time assuming that they have an agenda, especially when there is no proof.

[Drake Tungsten]

One more point, to hopefully get our definitions straight.

political ideals = bias

a plan to achieve something = an agenda

Pollack may well be biased; I don't deny this or even think that it is especially important. Everybody is biased, so it makes little sense to disregard a person's argument based on it.

I don't think Pollack has an agenda, however. I doubt that Pollack has formulated a plan to overthrow Iraq that he is pushing with this piece. He's just commenting on current events.

[CyberGnu]

Drake, it depends. University sponsored think tanks are usually exactly what you are talking about. But the phrase think tank has been usurped by everything from religious groups, political groups and even corporations. For examples of each, look at

The Christian Think Tank (well, duh, christian )
Mahattan Institute (conservative)
T3 (corporate)

[CyberGnu]

Well, I don't think one needs a made out plan to have an agenda... But out opinions might just differ on that one.

[Drake Tungsten]

You're right CyberGnu (never thought I'd say that).

What kind of think tank is the Saban Center for Middle East Policy? I've never heard of it before and my knee jerk reaction was to think of it as one of the "good" think tanks. It would be nice to know a little bit more about it.

Even if it's one of the more ideologically based think tanks, however, that still doesn't prove that Pollack has an agenda. It makes it more likely, but it still doesn't prove it...

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


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

I must have missed something Che. If you are not backing the use of force if Saddam does not disarm, Saddam will not disarm, but continue to play games. We shouldn't even bother to send in the inspectors. Neither should we have no fly zones or sanctions. We should simple fold our tents and go home. Saddam simply wins.

Why isn't that appeasement?

[Drake Tungsten]

The webster dictionary defines 'agenda' as an underlying often ideological plan or program

My dictionary has the same definition. I don't think you need a "made out" plan, but a plan of some kind must exist for one to have an agenda. What evidence is there that Pollack has a plan?

[CyberGnu]

Well, you have to ask Kepler about that, right?

[Drake Tungsten]

Well, you have to ask Kepler about that, right?

I did. You and STYOM were the ones who jumped all over me...