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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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.

[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...