If I'm reading that thread right, he's basically saying that both Democrats would have pursued the war too if they'd won 2000. Which sure, maybe, but ... then he says that's why it was a good idea. And I don't follow that logic. Two sides can both have the same stupid idea.
-
Ehhhh. I mean this is pretty basic I think. If "Saddam had WMDs so we had to invade" *doesn't* get to be a "don't take this person seriously* red flag, what does?
, invaded 
, threatened 
, attacked 
, acquired & used WMD, and been condemned by the UN.
No matter how you look at the situation, he was a "problem". Again, overdetermined.A part of my system of epistemic humility is that other fields decide their own rules for who is to be taken seriously. I cannot decide which physicists ought to be taken seriously on physics. That doesn't change for complex field conducted in plain language, like IR.
-
-
That's fair, but it doesn't help me to decide what information to take in and believe. I'm not an expert in IR. Everything I know about it comes from reading conflicting statements of experts and trying to divine from that which policy positions are least risky for me to 1/?
-
-orient my voting decisions around. I'm never going to be able to actually have an informed opinion on these topics. But I can establish a few red flags to determine who's *not* an expert I should trust. Whose opinion shouldn't be weighted when the time comes for me to make- 2/?
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.