Hard News: Ten Times Warmer
132 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
I think Iran is a huge sabre rattling exercise for an administration desperate to take focus from Iraq.
That's one possibility but it doesn't explain why countries other than the US are more than a little concerned about Iran. France, you know - that country that spent a lot of time opposing the US over Iraq, is voicing grave concern (and that predates Sarkozy).
It's all very easy to talk about Bush the warmonger blah blah, but it's not necessary to have as a corollary that we have nothing to worry about as regards Iran. Maybe it's not all just a neocon conspiracy that a secretive and repressive theocracy seeking the bomb is something democracies should be concerned about.
Some one up thread took up the alternative options theme, suggesting reinvigorating what seemed to be a thaw back in 2003. I would agree that at that time the Bush admin, fresh from overthrowing Saddam, acted with hubris towards Iran and possibly destroyed the chances for reconciliation. But it works both ways. If we look at North Korea, Bush has no problem with a repressive regime having a peaceful nuclear programme and will negotiate trade and aid with NK to get their acceptance. Iran a present doesn't look interested in making such a deal with the US or the rest of the international community.
-
Could someone who knows the Dead C pass that one on? I think they'd enjoy it.
I bump into Michael and Robbie now and again, so I will.
-
That's one possibility but it doesn't explain why countries other than the US are more than a little concerned about Iran.
Dude, I'm concerned about Iran. But I don't think bombing them is going to help anything. And the French are not exempt from sabre rattling just by virtue of thinking Iraq was a stupid idea. They certainly don't want any other 4th rate nuclear powers out there. That would undermine their own tenuous status as the lamest power to have the UN Security Council veto.
I'm not surprised Iran want the bomb. The Americans just invaded their next door neighbor on the flimsy pretext that he might possibly be wanting the bomb. The neighbor on the other side was smashed back to the stone age in a brutal revenge war that didn't even bother with the non-diplomacy that surrounded Iraq. Two of their other immediate neighbors have the bomb. Israel has the bomb. They are surrounded by hostile and better armed neighbors.
We can talk all we like about the impracticality of letting Iran get the bomb but their right to it is no less than any of the hypocritical powers ganging up on what they see as a soft whipping boy (for the moment). That the whipping boy is sitting on a sea of oil is hardly a coincidence either.
I personally think they will get the bomb. The Iraq war sealed that.
-
And the French are not exempt from sabre rattling just by virtue of thinking Iraq was a stupid idea. They certainly don't want any other 4th rate nuclear powers out there. That would undermine their own tenuous status as the lamest power to have the UN Security Council veto.
yeah, maybe. But on the other hand their concerns might just be genuine. It's worth considering. (but you might be amused to know France got the bomb so they could aim it at North Africa, not Eastern Europe).
I was thinking how the multiverse thing could have moral implications.
We all like to believe that our actions will make the world a better place, even if just in a small way. But if at every opportunity of action the universe splits into an infinite number of alternative universes, all going down those paths of different choices, then half of those alternatives will lead to a better world and half will lead to a worse world.
So by every action we condemn the people in half the multiverses to a worse existence. It reminds me of Alvy in Annie Hall. Brooklyn is expanding.
-
I'm sure their concerns are genuine. Everyone's concerns about everyone else who has nukes are genuine. Iran's concerns about France's nukes are genuine.That's why they need nukes. That's the stupid thing about a philosophy of arming up on everyone. Then you've got to either bash them, or they'll have to tool up too.
I'm not sure if the mathematicians are talking about that kind of multiverse. Only decisions that involve quantum uncertainty, which I don't understand is much of a factor in human decisions. Unless we start making choices via quantum random number generators of course, in a Schrodinger's Cat kind of way.
There don't seem to be very many macroscopic events that are affected by quantum uncertainty, except for ones deliberately contrived by humans. Because there are so many quantum events happening all the time that they basically even out. A light source looks like a steady stream until you turn it down to the smallest level. Only then can you count photons, measuring their extremely strange pattern, seeing which way they spin etc. But then again....maybe they're happening all the time and we just don't realize, and call it luck.
-
Or to put it more pluntly, the moral consequence of the multiverse theory is that the actions of Hitler and Gandhi are equivalent.
A moral argument against a scientic theory perhaps?
-
I think any time you're coming up with a moral argument against a scientific theory, you've forgotten what science is. Unless of course you deeply believe that the universe is ultimately moral.
I don't follow your logic when you say:
But if at every opportunity of action the universe splits into an infinite number of alternative universes, all going down those paths of different choices, then half of those alternatives will lead to a better world and half will lead to a worse world.
So by every action we condemn the people in half the multiverses to a worse existence.
Certainly every action is either better, or worse, or neutral for some people. Those are the three outcomes. But it doesn't follow from that, that because there are three outcomes that they split across the population. For instance I could discover a cure for cancer. For many people that would be good, for even more neutral. But I don't think the pool of people it was bad for would be that large. And the next branch in the tree, at the next action, could be in their favour anyway. So it's possible that many of the multiverses will steadily get better for everyone. Those are the ones we should choose. Unless we're wankers.
-
Russell
Helen Clark said in her Oxford Union speech this week
"Iraq did not meet our criteria for intervention in 2003 and we did not participate in the war there."
So Helen Clark only two days ago obviously believed the "war" was over just like John Key
She then says "We did, for one year, send New Zealand Defence Force engineers to do civilian reconstruction work, believing that was consistent with the United Nations mandate established in the course of 2003."
So we sent troops after the 'war' was over...
-
insider, civilian reconstruction engineers is hardly 'sending troops'. If that was the only presence the USA maintained, I don't imagine they'd be suffering hundreds of attacks every month.
-
Ben
They weren;t civilians. THey were soldiers. But I think you mean they were working on civilian projects.
But the distinction was made clear at the time - we didn;t send military to fight the war but did so to clean up afterwards.
-
They weren;t civilians. THey were soldiers. But I think you mean they were working on civilian projects.
But the distinction was made clear at the time - we didn;t send military to fight the war but did so to clean up afterwards.Yes, and then we brought them home and didn't replace them, because it was too dangerous and their work was being made irrelevant by the continuing bloodshed.
I see Key has issued his qualifier and explained that he was referring to the "technical war". And that's really the only sense in which he could be right: if you define the war as the first two weeks of hostilities, then it was over after two weeks.
The reality is that 3000+ US troops and perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died as a result of the fighting since. And in that time about four million Iraqis have been forced from their homes, half of them fleeing the country altogether. By any measure, it's a war zone.
-
Afterwards, during, who cares? They weren't fighting, they were helping rebuild shattered civilian infrastructure. It's noble cause however you look at it, whoever it purportedly supports.
-
Russell
OF course that was what he meant - anyone with half a brain knew that was what he meant. Hence my amazemnet at the beat up on this and the devclaration that it makes Key not fit to be PM, yet Helen Clark can effectively say the exact same thing on the same day and yet there be not a peep.
RNZ, bless their poor unbias hearts, just went over the top this morning with their interview of some poor woman whose son had died. Just bizarre. But it is the school holidays so a mini silly season.
-
merc,
I don't think Key looks good on this, ands here's a snippet from the ground, http://dailywarnews.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_archive.html
Indefensible. -
Helen Clark said in her Oxford Union speech this week
"Iraq did not meet our criteria for intervention in 2003 and we did not participate in the war there."
So Helen Clark only two days ago obviously believed the "war" was over just like John Key
She then says "We did, for one year, send New Zealand Defence Force engineers to do civilian reconstruction work, believing that was consistent with the United Nations mandate established in the course of 2003."
So we sent troops after the 'war' was over...
If you read her comments carefully enough - and maybe change around the order of her words a little bit - you'll see she also admitted to starting the Chicago fire.
-
we did not fight the fire
we are not fighting the fire
Yup, they say exactly the same thing if it wasn;t for those pesky tenses. I'd blame the Greeks if I thought I could get away with it.
-
They weren;t civilians. THey were soldiers. But I think you mean they were working on civilian projects.
LOL, can't resist this, but English is so ambiguous. When I said civilian reconstruction engineers I see you attached civilian as a modifier to engineer, rather than as a modifier to reconstruction. But you got the right intention in the end, as a result of actually honestly trying to understand what I was saying. That's the difference between this blog and many others. Crapping on about poor grammar doesn't go on for hundreds of abusive posts.
-
Simon,
While we certainly can't draw conclusions that the surge in Iraq has been a success, the fact that in Nov 06 there were 3500 Iraqi casualties and in Sept 07 there were 884 (a 75% reduction) proves that the surge is succeeding, to date, in one of its key objectives (reduction of violence). The 75% reduction is consistent with Petreaus' testimony and is not hype, or spin or opinion, it is a fact and I don't see how it can be disputed (credibly).That is not to say that the recent progress couldn't all fall apart, which it would most likely do if the US upped stakes and withdrew as soon as possible, as the anti war crowd and the Dems want to do. Then I think the most likely scenario would be a Rwanda like (or worse) blood bath and I don't understand how people who probably think of themselves as humanitarians and nice people could possibly advocate for a policy with that likely result.
One aspect that RB briefly and begrudgingly touched on in one of his posts on this thread (only begrudgingly probably because it is positive development in Iraq and reflects well on the US) that is greatly underplayed and is really of huge strategic significance is that Al Qaida, which wants to ignite a great revolution in the Muslim world, has been rejected by its fellow Sunni Muslims in Anbar, and this is being reported in the Middle East media and across the Muslim world. That is a huge deal, what a slap in the face for the great Osama Bin Goat Screwer.
According to Al Qaida’s view of the world, if any group of Muslims in the world should have been ripe to become enthusiastic adherents to Al Qaida, it should have been the tribes in Anbar, who are fellow Sunnis and had been invaded by the Great Satan. But the Sunnis of Anbar got an upfront and personal look at Al Qaida and the way they want to run the Muslim world and they not only said “Fuck off’ but enlisted none other than the great Satan to help them kick Al Qaida out of their land. It is a massive turnaround. How would you spin that one if you were Al Qaida’s media relations guy?
There is strong evidence that Iraq is now on the right track and the key issue is to keep it on the same track for a number of years and many of the remaining issues and disputes will get worked out or become part of the political domain. As the Iraqi Army gets bigger and better, it can deal with situations like the problems in southern Iraq described in the article by Galbraith. The biggest obstacle to the better Iraq that is possible is the Iraqi culture of corruption, and we won’t know the answer to that question for a number of years.
Here is a detailed article with a lot of detail on some of the positive developments in Iraq. I think the best description I heard about US efforts in Iraq was "Winning ugly". That sums it up quite well.
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=9804
-
RNZ, bless their poor unbias hearts, just went over the top this morning with their interview of some poor woman whose son had died. Just bizarre. But it is the school holidays so a mini silly season.
There's one thing we can agree on -- RNZ's handling of it was undignified and silly.
But believing that "Helen Clark said exactly the same thing" on the basis of the passage you quoted is very wishful thinking.
-
Hi James,
I think it's evident that al Qaeda's men in Anbar have done the coalition a favour by being so vile that even the Sunni insurgency wanted rid of them.
But do you not see an irony in the US arming thousands of Baathist insurgents and declaring it all a marvelous success?
And, to return to the original topic, what impact would you expect an attack on Iran to have on the mood of Iraq's Shia majority, and the Sadrists in particular? Do you think it will help the project?
-
James,
I don't want to go back and forth on this but your figures are askew again. There is a study, online but I can't find it again, I was reading a couple of days ago, from a New England University which analysed casualty figures over the past few months, going back to last year, which, using data provided by the US military at different times and provided fairly strong evidence of data shifting...ie moving bodies if you will from month to month to improve the next months figures. If that's the case its very hard to apply the word credible to your figures. Even the BBC link you touted said the drop was on some 38% over the same period. Which is it? No, the figures presented to Congress, were heavily manipulated in the understanding that certain sectors would lap it up. After all, making it all up worked in the past.Then we have the US Government Accountability Office whose report contradicts the General's...oh and the CIA's and the DIA's..all of which said the the General was making it up.
There is no evidence to support the claim that the surge has worked in anyway, beyond the touted drop in bodies (which is fantastic whatever be the cause). However several studies in Baghdad have attributed the drop in civilian casualties to one simple fact, illustrated by the huge change in religious demographics...that is that the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad is largely complete. Your argument is, and I'm not drawing Bush-Hitler parallels before you jump, saying the the drop in Death Camp figures in early 1945 was a good thing, whereas the truth is there was no-one left, like Baghdad, to kill.
The drop in US deaths means little to me, I'm far more concerned with Iraqi blood, but the drop there can largely be attributed to the fact the Sadr has called a ceasefire..he's largely achieved his short term aims..controls large swathes of Iraq, and is able to wait. In the much touted Anbar, despite the fact that US forces are now largely staying in base , and thus not exposed to IEDs, casualties rose by 50% last month. Al-Anbar has largely been handed back to the tribes and their miltias.
Your contention that things are going swimmingly well in Iraq, in a month where almost 1000 Iraqis died violently (under the new revised rulings as to what can be counted), when Cholera is turning into a huge problem, where, 6 years after it they destroyed it, the richest nation on earth can't provide proper power and water to the masses, where millions have fled, where mercenaries seem to be running unchecked, lacks credibilty.
-
Do PA readers follow The Bag?
I found the post 'Steps without a casket' quite moving.
-
I think any time you're coming up with a moral argument against a scientific theory, you've forgotten what science is. Unless of course you deeply believe that the universe is ultimately moral.
I was being mildly ironic but yes, I have a proof of a moral argument against science but there's not quite enough room here to write it down.
Certainly every action is either better, or worse, or neutral for some people. Those are the three outcomes. But it doesn't follow from that, that because there are three outcomes that they split across the population.
There are available to us an infinite number of choices so therefore there must be an infinite number of consequences. All of which are true in some universe. Some of those consequences will be Good, some will be Bad. It's partly about the nature of infinity, Cantor etc.
-
I'd be interested to read it at length if you have a link. I'm familiar with Cantor and infinity, denumerable or otherwise, so don't hold back!
There are available to us an infinite number of choices so therefore there must be an infinite number of consequences.
That's not trivially true, needs a bit more elaboration. You may have a lot of choices which lead to the same consequences. But clearly both choice and consequence would need to be very clearly defined if you want to be mathematical about them.
Just because a set you are dealing with is infinite, and some subsets of it are also infinite, doesn't mean they're all equally likely. If you choose a natural number randomly, then you have a 100% chance of choosing a natural number, a 50% chance of choosing an odd number, and a 1 in 1000 chance of choosing a number divisible by 1000. Yet all of them are infinite sets, of exactly the same size.
So I'm sure that, yes, there are universes which are possible that are all Bad, or all Good, as a direct result of choices that lead toward them, but I'd think the most likely universes (by a factor of nearly 100%) are a mixture. I could walk into SkyCity and win every game I played, bankrupting the house in one evening (or more likely getting kicked out after winning a few thousand dollars, beaten up, and told never to come back). But more likely is I'll win some, lose some, and the general trend will be towards losing.
Similarly with choices, some people make mostly good choices, some mostly bad, and most people are somewhere between. So the chances of an all-bad-choice universe are tiny, even if there are an infinite number of ways that could happen.
Furthermore, choices are not a zero-sum-game. There's not always a loser and a winner. With many choices, everyone is a loser, like 'let's have a nuclear war'. I think there are fewer 'all-are-winners' choices. But there are plenty of 'most-are-winners' choices, and that's usually the best place to be unless you are extremely talented. That's why the stockmarket is a better gamble than the horses, and also why there is more money in the stockmarket.
Which was why I contended your point:
But if at every opportunity of action the universe splits into an infinite number of alternative universes, all going down those paths of different choices, then half of those alternatives will lead to a better world and half will lead to a worse world.
If I am standing on a very, very high tightrope, I surely have an infinity of directions I can move in just in the x-y plane. But only ones along the line of the rope will be good choices, all of the rest involve falling off it and hurting myself. If the choice was random it is almost certain I would fall.
You see my point? Just because there are 3 outcomes from every choice (better or worse or the same), doesn't mean they are equally likely. Sometimes all of the options are the same, like 'what actions should I take whilst being hanged?'. If the hangman knows his job every path leads to your death. I guess you can split hairs and say it's better if you're calm, or if you struggle you might squeeze a couple more seconds of life out, but the options all dry up pretty quickly.
-
I'd be interested to read it at length if you have a link.
That was my attempt at humour again, Fermat and his famous lack of space.
I haven't got time to reply, maybe later this evening.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.