Skip to main content

View Diary: Bush Let North Korea Get Nukes... On Purpose, People. (139 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I've tried to be nice to you. (0+ / 0-)

    But now you tell me that what I've written is not worth responding to, except for one thing, and that's just to show me how wrong I am.

    Ok, gloves off on my side too, then.   Nothing you have said has been worth my attention.  You are simply missing the point about this diary and you persist in doing so, without showing any sign that you are even listening to counterargument.

    Now I understand why.  Your views are inherently superior and mine are not worth your time.  Well, yours aren't worth my time either, except for one important thing:  I DO want to learn from other people, even (and in some ways especially) from those with whom I disagree.

    In that spirit, I choose to address your comments, because I choose to think that you may have something to teach me, because I am aware that I don't know what I need to learn until I have learned it.

    The basic fact the diary is based on has to do with the fact that Bush apparently take a major policy step, excusing Nk from inspections, which has recieved little note (that I am aware of) and which is highly paradoxical in relation to stated policies and stances of the administration.

    It is THAT PARADOX that virtually demands speculation about motives, since it does not appear to be consistent with overtly expressed motives.  So the diary is speculation  occassioned by a fact.  The weakness of the diary is that it seems to treat that speculation as if it was also fact.  But, while criticizing that, we must (I believe) recognize that positing "miscalculation" as the reason behind the oddball policy is ALSO speculative.

    Please don't bother replying if your plan is simply to show me how wrong I am, or worse, to basically insult me by telling me that I am not worth responding to.  If I'm not worth responding to, the best way to do that is not respond.  That happens all the time and I don't mind it a bit.

    a hope that may come close to despair

    by epppie on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 11:12:03 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  maybe you should try harder (0+ / 0-)

      I wasn't trying to be mean.  I was simply saying that you are missing my point.  And since I further disagree with most of your conclusions, I didn't see the point in continue debate with you on several points that I think are essential irrevelant (to this thread, but interesting in and of themselves).  I was trying to explain that I think we are having different arguments, so there is not much point continuing since that will never lead to resolution.  I was not saying that YOU are not worth responding to, but that the argument as you seems to be framing it is not one I'm much interested in at the moment.  And sorry if that's seems condesing, but I thought it would be better to explain and end the chain that way than simply not responding at all.

      However, since above you seem to be responding to the point I was initally trying to make I will answer. Sorry about the delay I'm on the other side of the world and have wierd hours.

      This diary isn't about excusing Nk from inspections.  That's what patsbard's diary is about (notice his comments in this thread).  This article is about Bush deliberately allowing NK to get nukes.  One is an act of neligence, the other an intentional act.  I never saw this as an argument discussing Bush's motives for excusing the inspection.  The diarist only used that fact as evidence for his claim, which I see as materially different.  And his claim is that Bush wanted this to happen and deliberately made choices to help this to happen.  As I said - I think we are reading the diary completely differently.

      And yes I think I'm right and you are wrong on this or else we wouldn't be have this discussion in the first place.  Feel free to explain to me why I am wrong.  However, if at this point you just want to say we are not going to see eye to eye, I understand.

      "This is the way the world ends/ This is the way the world ends/ This is the way the world ends/ Not with a bang but a whimper." - T. S. Eliot

      by sadpanda on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 11:45:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Let's both try harder. How about that? (0+ / 0-)

        You are right that we don't seem to be getting anywhere as I feel pretty much the mirror image to what you seem to feel:  it seems to me that you are not getting my points and that your comments are themselves missing the point generally.

        I'm willing to keep trying.   If you want to break off, just do it.  If you want to continue, I'm ok with that as well.  I'm not greatly invested in this interaction one way or the other.  I'm just willing.

        Now let me try again to make myself clear to you.  Here is what I see as your key statement here:

        "This diary isn't about excusing Nk from inspections.  That's what patsbard's diary is about (notice his comments in this thread).  This article is about Bush deliberately allowing NK to get nukes.  One is an act of neligence, the other an intentional act."

        Ok, the point I think you are missing here is that the notion that "one is an act of negligence" in itself speculates about motivation.  The word "negligence" does speak to  motivation,  in that it implies lack of a particular motivation.  That is HIGHLY speculative and, with respect, I am at my wits end as to how to make that any clearer than I already have.  It's almost like you and I are speaking two different languages, understanding words not somewhat differently, but totally differently.  You seem to live in a world where words like "miscalculation" and "negligence" say nothing about motivation.  I live in a world where words like that say something very important about motivation, about lack of any particular motivation.  They are not nuetral, as to motivation.  They are speculative and speculative in a very important way, a way that could be very deceptive.  

        Nuetral would be finding some way to say that we do not know what the motivation behind this seemingly paradoxical policy is, not that there is no particular motivation.

        So, for me, it comes down to this:  there are two diaries.  One is informative.  One is exhortative.  Both SPECULATE about the motivations behind a seemingly paradoxical and harmful policy.

        If we do continue to discuss this, let's be friends.  I'm not out to be a pain and I'm sure you are not either.  Most likely, we are just talking past each other, without meaning to.

        a hope that may come close to despair

        by epppie on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 01:05:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  friendship accepted (0+ / 0-)

          I'll admit now I am throughly confused.

          Are you saying that me saying it was negligent is highly speculative, because I am assuming there was a lack of motive?  If that's the case then I'll disagree, but I don't want to get into it if that is not what you are saying.

          But then there is this, which I can't make sense of -

           You seem to live in a world where words like "miscalculation" and "negligence" say nothing about motivation.  I live in a world where words like that say something very important about motivation, about lack of any particular motivation.

          huh?

          And this may be a tangent of sorts, but we are speaking different languages if you are saying that there is a motive to negligence and miscalculation. The way I understand them negligence acts and miscalculation can not have a motivation.

          Negligence and miscalculation are in direct opposition to doing something on purpose.  Both are a failure to consider.  Therefore you can't have a motivation to be neligence or to miscalculate because motivation implies intent.

          You are negligent because you failed to full consider what the results of your action might be.  Is you had a motivation (an intent to reach a certain goal) when you acted or failed to act you were not negligent, but acting intentionally.

          When you miscalate you get a result you didn't intend.  Here, you may have a motivation you are striving for, but missed.  There can be no motivation for the unintended result or it would be intentional.

          Negligence and miscalculation  are almost the opposite of intentionality.  And thus motive can not be assigned to them since motive is the reason to act.  If you are acting without thought (negligence) or acting for another purpose (miscalculation) either have no motive (negligence) are you are not furtherance your motive and the result achieved will not reflect your motive (miscalculation).

          Either Bush acted intentionally (what the diarist is making an unsupported claim for based on the existance of what he thinks is a possible motive); he acted negligently, because he failed to pay proper attention to the threat; or he miscalculated by realizing the threat but taking action meant to fix the problem but failed.  Of course there are other options (gross negligence, recklessness etc).  The only one of these for which a motive could be ascribed if it he acted intentionally.  And saying that he did this intentionally let NK get nukes - as the diarist does - would be a big deal.

          but then there is this

          Nuetral would be finding some way to say that we do not know what the motivation behind this seemingly paradoxical policy is, not that there is no particular motivation.

          The policy the diarist is talking about is letting NK get nukes.  In this statement I assume you are referring to patsbard diary about the policy to with regards to inspections.  I can not speculate about why Bush did that.  I am sure something motivated him, but what I couldn't say. The point I've been trying to make is that no matter why he made this choice, it does not suggest that he wanted NK to get nukes.

          The title of this diary is "Bush let NK get Nukes, on purpose."  The diarist alleges that the motivation for this was to benefit manufatures.  He then cites excusing Nk from inspections as evidence of this motive, because why would he do that if to achieve this purpose.  The frame from which the diarist approaches this, and the one I object to is that Bush intentionally let NK get nukes.  Put another way he is saying that Bush wanted NK to have nukes.  You could say that Bush's policy was excusing NK from inspections was motivated by the fact that he wanted them to get nukes. Or you could come from the way the diarist frames it that Bush's policy was for NK to get nukes and his motivation was benefit manufactures.

          I'm not sure any of that made sense.  Sorry.  Guess I tend to ramble when I don't really understand what I am responding to. We might have to abandon this as hopeless. : )

          "This is the way the world ends/ This is the way the world ends/ This is the way the world ends/ Not with a bang but a whimper." - T. S. Eliot

          by sadpanda on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 03:51:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Here's where you seem to be misunderstanding me. (0+ / 0-)

            You say "And this may be a tangent of sorts, but we are speaking different languages if you are saying that there is a motive to negligence and miscalculation. The way I understand them negligence acts and miscalculation can not have a motivation."

            But you see, I didn't say that negligence and miscalculation have motivation.  What I said was that they SPEAK TO motivation;  that is, they posit lack of particular motivation.  THAT is speculative.  And it speculates in a way that is every bit as crucial as positing particular motivations of one kind or another is.  

            If we are to stop all speculation at Daily Kos, then I think we need to stop the sort of speculation, which I see a lot of, that assumes that incompetence, negligence or miscalculation lie behind harmful acts and decisions.  People seem to jump all over what they see as some tin foil speculation, ignoring other speculations that are just as harmful, if less picturesque.  

            Of course it is more dramatic to say 'Bush did that strange thing because he wants to sell nukes',  instead of 'Bush did that strange thing because he miscalculated', but both are speculations that can be harmful when taken for or presented as fact.

            Yes, I think we are talking past each other and it seems increasingly pointless to persist, but I do think the point is an important one.  

            As a side point, however one that relates, I think that the author may well be correct that Bush DID intend for Nk to get nukes and his speculation that future nuke sales may be part of the reason is an interesting one, in my opinion.   Another point he might have brought up, which I have read recently and heard about on the Tom Hartmann show, is that right after the six way diplomacy finally did achieve an agreement with Nk, the Bush administration effectively torpedoed the agreement by blasting Nk with some severe trade sanctions, including bank restrictions.  

            Now why would a person supposedly work towards an agreement for years and then immediately undercut it?  

            But that's not my main point.

            a hope that may come close to despair

            by epppie on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:32:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Actually I think I sorta understand that (0+ / 0-)

              But

              1- Since we don't know if it is negligence, miscalculation or intentional.  Speculating on motive becomes pointless, because we haven't resolved if there is one.

              2- There is a huge differance between speculating that it is miscalculation and intent.  And I think perhaps thats where we are not seeing eye to eye.

              For example you come across Mr. X, who is standing next to a dead body in the road.  You know nothing about what happened.  But lets just say you think X might have had a motive for wanting the person dead.  If you were to use that information and start proclaim that X killed the man, YOU would be acting in a manner that is reckless, because you are possibily maligning an innocent person AND you are damaging your own credibility. When you don't have an evidence the X had anything to do with the person's death except be present at it, saying they did it on purpose is a huge leap. It is possible that based on this information that X committed no crime and was just a helpless bystander; X could have saved the person and didn't; X didn't do enough to prevent death, X had a duty to save the person and didn't, X contributed to their death accidently, X should have know that their action would lead to death, X knew that their action would lead to death and did it on purpose (which is murder).  These are all extremely different situations and range from no crime committed to possibly murder one. If you came upon this scene and decided that this was murder than you were be speculating wildly.  There are several possible option and to choose the most serious would be leveling a huge charge without evidence and would be a much bigger deal than if you accused the person of not saving them.  The greater the accusation is the more problematic it is to level it without evidence.

              I've been really resisting the urge to use the term libelous, because even though it doesn't apply to Bush in this situtation is illustrates how big a problem this is.  However, as a parrallel, if this were ordinary people this would be clearly libelous.  But while in libel the primary concern is on the damaged to Mr. X, the speakers is also maligned.  

              3- And I think we agree that any kind of speculation presented as fact is a problem.  However, the more wild the speculation is the more problematic it becomes.

              4- Its not just more dramatic.  You are leveling a greater charge.  One that would clearly be libelous if Bush wasn't a public figure and you couldn't prove it.  Even then if he wasn't president you might still be in trouble because this could amount to the higher level required for some quasi-public figures of gross neligence or recklessness.  And just because its not actionable doesn't mean that it is acceptable here.  Fostering a debate on a possibility is one thing.  Leveling a serious charge at an individual without adequate evidence to support it is entirely unacceptable.

              5- Also it has been established here that saying Bush let 9/11 on purpose is a conspiracy theory on its face. There is no debate on that topic here. Period.  This is only a step removed from that kind of charge.

              "This is the way the world ends/ This is the way the world ends/ This is the way the world ends/ Not with a bang but a whimper." - T. S. Eliot

              by sadpanda on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:23:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I will leave Daily Kos and ask them to cancel (0+ / 0-)

                my account.   I can't think of anything more outrageous than a political discussion site where any speculation about the intentions of political figures which involves the possibility of malign motives is forbidden.

                a hope that may come close to despair

                by epppie on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:40:29 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  ok then (0+ / 0-)

                  Funny but thats not what I said.  We do speculate about motives.  We just don't make insane baseless claims and we don't do conspiracy theories.  Period.  

                  But good luck with that.

                  And because honestly if you think having community standards which say that insane unsupported speculation is not ok because it makes us all look crazy you can go find a less reality based community. We are serious about politics here.

                  However, I will add one word of caution.  Read the FAQ before you ask to have your account deleted.  Although really all you need to know is that DKos does not delete accounts and you will get laughed at if you request it.  I believe the FAQ provides links to explain why you will get laughed at.

                  "This is the way the world ends/ This is the way the world ends/ This is the way the world ends/ Not with a bang but a whimper." - T. S. Eliot

                  by sadpanda on Sun Oct 15, 2006 at 01:22:34 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site