Haezed

blame? According to Bush and Cheney it would be 'praise'.

I appologize that i misread your post. You were praising Bush. That's two posters in a row! I stand humbled before you both.

The war in Iraq is lost.

Now I"m confused.

Not pleasure but feeling a lot safer. What if the USA was successful in Iraq? Who would have been next? would the Americans then have invaded Iran? N. Korea?...Venezuela...Cuba?...what lies would have been trumped up to invade other countries?

Iran would have been the closest call. I think the idea that we might have invaded Cuba is fanciful.

The USA has been humiliated in Iraq and the world won't accept American 'evidence' to justify more aggression.

The USA will survive the humiliation although much of the world has proven itself a bit thick. I agree that a real downside of this war was to establish the limits of US power.

It's a pendulum. You may recall that GHB was disempowered, in part, because he did not finish Saddam off when he had the chance. You just can't please everyone.

The USA reached a low point with its 'Freedom Fries' tantrum and, after it is forced out of Iraq, the USA will have the opportunity to redeem its tainted image.

The rest of the world can stuff itself if it thinks that on balance the USA is "tainted."

Recap:

Saddam is out. That's a good thing.

Iraqis have the chance for freedom. That's good.

Limits of US projecting power has been reestablished post Vietnam: That might be good or bad depending on your POV.

I thought the freedom fries were hilarious.

There comes a point when people just have to stand on their own feet, it happens for lots of people. The Iraqis have a lot to lose by not making something out of this (like the proceeds from a whole bunch of oil, for one). They know this. This is regime change. The majority is gaining control. The majority will be gaining a lot of tools and know-how out of this. The majority is being taught how to make something out of this. It's always the idiot splinter groups that make it so hard, but if the Sunnis can be taught to turn Al-Qaeda, then there should be plenty of hope.

 

Will the Iraqis let their big chance slide into chaos? I think not.

I want to believe this conclusion. If we honestly think the Iraqis can stand up without degenerating into genocide or without Iran destablizing the region or providing safe haven for terrorists, I agree we should withdraw.

We've worked too hard to fix our mess.

You are now blending into your argument our sunk costs which, as Bascule noted, should not be considered.

There is no way that we will kill all of the insurgents.

True, but you've already argued that our action has been a success because we've given Iraqi's their freedom and they will be able to defend themselves without our aid. If we need to stay a bit longer to preserve the hard won victory, I'd say that is a judgment call.

The Queen != the British government

The Queen != the British people

The Queen != the fault of either of the above

We love all of you guys.

Gotta love the Brits!

What I'm waiting for is for some Muslims to have the guts to have counterprotests - to march in support of Rushdi and against the nutcases.

Bush and Cheney have the answer. Ask them to explain the 'what then' by staying another 3, 5 or 15 years. Surely the Americans thought this through when they were chomping at the bit to occupy Iraq.

Well, that's great, but shoving blame on this administration isn't going to be too fun after the next election. It's not a greatly productive exercise even now but if it gives you pleasure....

I still think the order to withdraw will come by the end of this year.

Perhaps. The question is, what then?

Very bad.

Care to elaborate since that was the question, kind of sort of, posed by the OP that very few want to consider?

BUT,

I've just got to laugh. It took you three words to skip past the question.

....the terrible consequences are not going to stop the failure nor can they be used to keep troops in Iraq.

I don't understand this sentence.

We have two separate issues:

1. Whether we can succeed in Iraq.

2. The consequences if we fail.

I see those as the flip side of the same coin although failure can come in many forms and degrees.

I don't see how we can succeed in Iraq. Nothing our brave and dedicated people in the military can do will stop the failure. The failure is one at the NCA who ordered the invasion in the first place.

And failure means... what? Oh, right, you wouldn't say.

At some point you have to decide not to reinforce and continue failure. There are some battles that simply can't be won and you have to quit and face the consequences.

Lots of words. No answer.

Busted - for not reading my post before commenting on it. I've stated in three different posts I'm for a secure border - every inch actually - and I don't know anyone who has proposed security like that yet.

You SAY you are for a secure border but you ignore the part of my post that questions how you will make that happen. Remember, I argued:

So after spending billions of dollars making an impregnable The Great Wall of Mexico, you would throw open the gates and let everyone come in except those you "filter" out as criminals?

 

How, exactly, do we "filter" criminals coming in from Mexico? We are going to have to have a database on Mexican criminals? Does such a database even exist? Surely you would not keep people out of the US if they committed only minor crimes in Mexico?

I think that is the only portion of my post that you ignored. If we genuinely had a secure border, with complete control, I don't think most would have quite they gripe they do with 12-20 million illegals. However, without border control, 12-20 million could be the tip of the floating glacier heading our way (which to make the analogy work I guess is on its side, but whatever).

Yes, it was. How much effort did you put into it? Risk your life in a sardine can to get here? Paid much attention to human trafficing and how people get into that position? You have to be pretty damn desparate to take on the odds and put your life and money - and your kid's lives - in the hands of a smuggler to get you here.

If 20 million can do it, it's not that hard. Our border is a joke and the only real risk is getting sent back. Big whoop.

What did I do? Well, I was born here, was raised and had certain American values inculcated into me from birth. I've pledged my allegiance to this country probably ten thousand times. I do not have any foot in another country. This is my country.

I'm an American for the same reasons Romans were Romans and Mexicans are Mexicans. Every nation state has to have some label for those who are part of their body politic. The name here is US Citizen. Without that label meaning something, the nation will not exist.

No we're not. There's a gaping hole in the ideology - including mine - that needs to be worked out. Pragmatism is just realizing the hole is there and patching it up.

Heh, okay, you appealed to pragmatism but I'll now agree that we're not getting anywhere and wait to see if you disagree with even this.

You and wormwood, both, missed this one because you both took it out of context. I wasn't crying about how we enslaved or slaughtered the natives here - that's a whole 'nother topic. I don't apologize for what happened to the indians, just like I don't shrug my shoulders in confusion as to why slavery still exists today.

 

The point I was making is that our ancestors came here and abused the land and it's people on a level that trumps, ten fold, the abuse we get from current immigrants. And the only reason that point was made was to put things in perspective.

Then, so what? If treatment of the Indians is ancient history who cares what our ancestors did? In any event, it is only because we "abused" the land that we could build a country illegals want to enter.

But that's all a citizen is though. You were either born here - my how impressive that citizenship status was earned. Or you migrated here, in which case we require a brief symbolic ritual that magically transforms you into the "citizen". Like learning the pledge of allegiance and some history...etc.

Wrong. By way of example, a corporation is an artificial distinct entity but in practice it is made up of people. Same goes for any organization of humans into collective endeavors. Citizenship is what defines the membership in this countries body politic and it is not trivial.

Have you ever attended a naturalization ceremody? They are powerful events and I beg to differ that the "ritual" is meaningless.

Not that I don't think it's necessary for them to do this ritual, but put it in perspective. You're basically advocating that people who have not performed this ritual are so far removed from being a "citizen"...I just don't believe in the clout you seem to be giving the "citizen".

I'm clueless as to what your proposal is. Eliminate the law pertaining to citizenship? Have various classes of people here? That's pretty much what we have now with current law except some of them are not classed because they snuck across the borders.

In my mind, someone who ran from their government to get here, and all the horror that goes along with that, has done more to earn a life here than you or I.

Life's not fair. Sorry, hate to break it to you, but it's not. It's a given that those who are born here are going to be citizens. It is also a given that we cannot let everyone who wants to "earn" citizenship by breaking our laws and enter the country. That is just not practical in the long term.

Force. Every border on the globe is maintained by force - or implied force. Again, I'm not crying about the indians' plight. I'm also not worried about our level of force and losing our country to anyone.

What limits would you impose on Mexican immigration? Any?

Maybe animosity was the wrong word, but the point I'm trying to make is that "citizenship" seems to be the grand partition.

Then what partitions would you create, if any?

Don't 12 to 20 million people "absorb" and therefore create job opportunities and growth in other areas - perhaps indirectly? Stands to reason that many people eat, live in houses, buy stuff...etc. Granted, some get all of this from our tax dollars, but these are augments to our economy.

This doesn't rebut my argument. I said we should make a collective decision as to the number of new citizens we need and the number of temporary workers. If we need them, let them in legally perhaps from a variety of sources.

We don't need any of them do we? Isn't this a myth as well? And I agree, the employers should be punished. Just like we bust prostitutes AND johns, we should bust illegals AND their employers.

If we need them, let's make them legal. If we don't, don't. I want to do more than punish employers. I want to sic thousands of hungry lawyers on them if they break the law.

I wouldn't let them in to run around the country in the first place until they are citizens. My approach would be more of a forced citizenship. With an actual secure border, we welcome all who can get here, however you can get here, but then you are held and put through the citizenship process. You will learn the fundamentals about our country, and you will learn english enough to assimilate - you will be a citizen before you are allowed "in the country".

Would you allow them to remain citizens of Mexico?

With a secure border, I wouldn't give them the chance to be an illegal member of society. You may disagree, but I don't think this is being soft on immigration. It would weed out those who are looking for a free ride. Those who want to work will have no problem.

For someone who wants to eliminate welfare, you have a surprising confidence in the ability of government to categorize millions of people.

Kind of rehash at this point, but no I'm putting it in perspective. There's not enough to being a citizen in the first place to conclude that deportation of people who have established lives here is the proper punishment for breaking that law.

So you'd agree we can deport them if they are caught crossing the border?

My only issues with deportation have more to do with those who have established lives here - the 10 to 20 million we keep referring to that no one has any real idea about. But someone coming to this country initially, has no roots or life here. To me, there is nothing wrong with kicking that person out if they don't follow the path to citizenship. I don't put enough clout to citizenship to remove those who are already here and established, but I DO see enough credit in citizenship to throw someone out who just got here and isn't following the rules right out of the gate.

 

Do you realize how complicated it would be to write what you are saying into a workable law? Would we use a point system to prove "establishment" in this country? Ten points if you coached youth soccer! Minus ten if the team wore Mexican uniforms!

In other words, if those 10 to 20 million had been deported before they got settled in, I would be all for it.

Again, you would require an incredible amount of beurocracy to decide this issue.

Really stop and consider how totalitarian it would look when you go rounding up established family members and kicking them out. That's disgusting.

Busted - for not reading any of my post. I never argued for a round up.

You are exactly right. And we have defined our membership as tired, poor immigrants yearning to be free. Worked out for our ancestors and ultimately you and I, so why shouldn't it continue to work out?

No we haven't. That's just a poem writtten on a plaque during a time when we needed more laborers.

The problem is, immigration in the past has meant economic growth and labor diversity. We were also far more self sufficient and needed the people. Today, with the decline of our industrial labor and outsourcing, and all of the handouts and the culture of poverty - immigration is so negative - doesn't seem to be good for us at all.

Busted - for ignoring my three arguments for why this assumption might not hold true in this case.

But you want to blame the immigrants and their overloaded desire to get here and get a better life - self serving just like all of us americans. I want to put the blame on government that's ignored the constitution and set up a system for the poor to leech off of and ultimately attract every loser on the planet - that WE get to pay for. Then add in the anti-american businesses selling out our country to hire someone for pennies on the dollar in some other country...

Busted - strawman. I don't blame them for wanting a better life. I just want to put a stop to the inflow by drying up the supply of jobs for illegals.

How did the government ignore the Constitution? What provision are you talking about?

I actually give illegals more credit than you do in one respect. I think they stay off of the grid and do not really use that many social services. On balance, they may contribute to the economy but that is not an argument for ILLEGAL immigration. We could get those benefits with legal immigration once we gain control of the situation.

True, they will not have "earned" their citizenship by crossing the border but, as I suggested before, we could always make them don hoplite armor and fight it out on the plains of Nebraska.

One thing I don't understand is this notion that the border "cannot be secured". Why is a stretch of land less securable just because it's longer? Does the US border with Mexico constitute 9/10ths of the world's secured landspace? Of course not. So why this assumption that just because it's long it cannot be closed? Surely this is really more a matter of money (i.e. manpower) than physical constraints.

 

I would really like to know what other countries spend per mile on their border security, and see that figure compared with our own spending per mile.

As the worlds last superpower (for now), we are a target and need a secure border. Moreover, we have resources so we can talk about this whereas, say Brazil, could not.

It does stand to reason that the longer a border, the more difficult, i.e. expensive, it will be to secure. I agree that it would be interesting to see what other countries spend on border security per mile.

Running short on time now, but one question for Haezed. You said: "It wont' be impossible once you reduce the flow to a trickle after the jobs dry up. How hard is that to understand?"

 

Apparently pretty hard. Cracking down on employers I'm all for, since I agree it will help remove the incentive for illegal immigration, which is definitely where our efforts should be focused. But what does that have to do with getting rid of the millions who are already here?

If we created a private right of action for lawyers to pursue against employers hiring illegals, those jobs would dry up over night. This would probably work even without making the employment of an illegal alien a felony.

Since these people are coming for jobs, I'm thinking without jobs to come to they will not come.

As for those already here, I suspect many would go back to their families if they did not have employment here.

You make interesting points, Haezed, but I'm afraid I remain unconvinced. But I think we agree on immigration more than disagree. Certainly the border needs to be more secure and I'm pretty tired of the mainstream right being dismissedly accused of being completely opposed to immigration. I see no hint of that in their policy at all.

Absolutely we agree on this. It really chaps my backside when the word "immigration" is used interchangably with "illegal immigration."

However, I wonder if it's possible to control the border until we reduce the flow to a trickle and that requires illegals not getting jobs. Once we stop the assault by MILLIONS on our border, we have a ghost in a chance of protecting our borders. Until then, no chance.

I think the "cultural" argument might be more successful if it were more specific. Most of the time that line of debate comes across as cultural phobia -- white people not understanding why their strange new neighbors with their great numbers of children spend so much time outside in the yard and street rather than couped up in the house studiously avoiding each other just like normal people. (grin)

How's this then: The culture we have now works while the one in Mexico does not. Let's let in 1 or 2 MILLION Mexicans into our country if we need the labor but there is no reason to let entire areas of our country be defined by their culture which has not succeeded on many levels.

Alternatively, if we really believe we need 12-20 million from this one area of the world (for whatever reason), why not phase them in to see what impacts it has on our society before we just say "amnesty, now may we have another 20 million, please?"

I disagree. Immigration was a clear intention of the founding fathers. It's not clear that they intended for it to be controlled, either. But it was a different world then and it's a reasonable extrapolation.

They were smart enough not to include that intention in any provision of the Constitution. In fact, there is some distinction between the newly immigrated and natural born citizens which is why Henry Kissinger could never have been president.

In any event, the founding fathers were dealing with a wide open frontier (in their mind anyway, which excluded the natives) just waiting for colonization. That has nothing to do with the current situation which is, no doubt, why the founding fathers did not enshrine any right to come into the country in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

When we were desparate for bodies to fill the continent from sea to shining sea, of course we bragged about how willing we were to accept new blood but none of this was enshrined in any principle which was intended to be enduring.

But what "original" cultrure do you think they would have opted to preserve? Are you ready to don your hat of obeissance and daily prayer as prescribed by the relgious fruitcakes who first came here? Know much about tilling a field? Shepherding? Sewing quilts?

I don't think I ever grounded my arguments on the intent of the founding fathers.

I think you're forgetting something really important. What makes this country great is the willingness of immigrants to become true Americans.

That is one of the things that makes the country great but, again, I say what is the unique advantage of illegal immigrants. Why not make conscious decisions about who we want and where they come from? There is no argument made on this board for letting others make that decision.

They embrace our culture so wholeheartedly that their immediate children become native speakers and think of themselves as Americans first and their parent's country second (and most of their parents will do the same).

You do not respond to my argument about this assumption. This has been the case in the past but this is a different kettle of fish for many reasons, only three of which I listed.

"Elected officials" didn't open that door. We all did. It really was decided.

If the "door" is forever opened as a matter of constitutional law, then it isn't a door at all because it can never be shut.

. I also mentioned that being homosexual could be considered a type of mental illness.

I was choosing to ignore you.

I agree that gay marriage should be allowed. I would let them adopt children. We have enough kids in this country being raised by one parent without using this resource.

Also, I'm tired of the parades. Let's just make them mainstream and forget about it.

On deportation or imprisonment: There are, by most estimates, about 15 million illegal immigrants from Mexico living in the United States.

That is why you have to dry up the jobs for illegals. Punish the employers and sic lawyers on them by creating a private right of action.

This is very doable. The problem is that no one wants to offend the growing hispanic power base AND big business wants its labor. There is a perfect storm of political power.

I repeat: Figure out how many legal immigrants we want and where we want them from (yes, that should be our decision, speaking of obvious facts) and make them legal. Dry up the reason for coming for the rest.

Yes, they are "criminals," and on principle, criminals should be punished. But that is impossible here. How hard is that to understand?

It wont' be impossible once you reduce the flow to a trickle after the jobs dry up. How hard is that to understand?

On "preserving our culture:" The United States is and always has been a melting pot where each new wave of immigrants adds to the new culture but is not absorbed by it.

I'm not sure who said "preserve our culture" but I do say that we have the right to determine when and if and from where we let immigrants come to this country. If our elected representatives want an open door, then so be it but that was never decided. We have the confluence of big business and liberals both wanting cheap labor and new voters.

History shows us that the new need not destroy the old - in fact, in strengthens it.

Differences abound with this wave: First, it is continuous. We have 12-20 million here now but nothing says that won't increase because, speaking of obvious, Mexico unlike any of the other countries we've accepted immigration from is on a contiguous porous border. This isn't prompted by a specific event, e.g. a potato famine, but by a question of supply and demand which will be ongoing and has very little limit.

Second, the ability to keep a real connection to the homeland is much greater because again, this is a contiguous country without an ocean separating them from what was. They aren't like Cortez burning his ships when he reached S. America. They have a foot, and perhaps a very real allegiance, to both countries. If someone comes here legally, applies for citizenship, goes down to federal court and pledges allegiance to THIS country, I'll take them at their word. Otherwise, I make no assumptions.

Third, they are able to hook up with an already existing political power base and thereby feel far more empowered than previous immigrants. They aren't stupid. They know they are the fastest growing minority in the country and may (I'm not sure, just showing why your assumption is merely an assumption) not feel as compelled to integrate into the larger culture.

And this almost never happens right away - the great majority of us are descended from immigrants who did not speak English when they arrived, who still had deep connections to their respective motherlands, ....

It is a mistake not to know history. It is also a mistake to assume that history will continually repeat itself. That is a comforting but fundamentally false notion. I'm not so sure this wave of illegal immigrants will mix into the culture as did others. That's an assumption on your part which may not apply to immigration from a contiguous country. Personally, I don't know but would feel better IF we need to import labor, taking it from varied sources.

On "they took yer jooobs!"

I agree this is not a great argument. We should figure out how many LEGAL immigrants we need and then let them in LEGALLY. Get them registered. Hell, even be picky. Let them in on our terms and get the labor we need. Don't however, let employers hire illegals.

On border security. Yes, it is important. But how important? Mexico is an ally, remember? And the Mexican border is certainly not the easiest way to illegally enter the United States - the Canadian border is much less well defended. If the argument is really just about some abstract sanctity of borders, then what about those undefended 7000 miles? I call hypocrite.

Then you are engaging in an ad hominem attack. We don't have waves of Canadians illegally entering the country. It's not just that we are protecting line on the map. Letting millions into a country when you don't know who they are is a recipe for disaster.

If you simply legalize 12-20 million, then millions more will come and the problem repeats itself as it has before.

I know, let's dig up a thread from three years ago and start repeating bad arguments.

Naw, let's just be snotty to each other. It's so much more fun.

A very valid point 'Haezed', well lets see what the 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean and Vice-Chairman Lee Hamilton had to say about the integrity of the information they were given in creating this 'respected' report.

 

Quote,

"Fog of war could explain why some people were confused on the day of 9/11, but it could not explain why all of the after-action reports, accident investigations and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue."

 

 

Oh dear, I suppose they must be 'conspiracy nuts' too.

You'll accept all that Kean has to say on this subject? I guess you disagree with the other poster that the report was a hack job? In context, was Kean really supporting a conspiracy theory? That would be news to me. I think what he was saying is that certain individuals did some CYA after the fact. Hardly surprising and in no way proof of a conspiracy theory.

Besides, you dodge my question: What is your theory? Did the 9/11 attackers simply not exist? Were the planes emptied, the passengers disappeared and the planes remote controlled into the buildings?

Did the US government know the plot was going to happen and time a demolition to coincide with the attacks so the buildings would fall? Not sure why the buildings falling is such a big deal, but I'd at least like to know what the theory is so we can test it for reasonability.

Haezed, you would like some peer reviewed papers - these any good?

 

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

 

Oh, and Haezed, take a look at just how independent the 911 Commission was, it might just shock you. Most are cronies of Bush and the GOP's. Should not a public inquiry be fully independent, able to subpeona witnesses and examine them under oath, demand access to important papers etc etc... Need I go on??

Let's take a look to see the peer reviewed journals you cite:

Vol. 12.

1. Laura Manwell, Ph.D. Candidate Behavioral Neuroscience, University of Guelph, speaks glowingly of the 9/11 "truth movement." Doesn't sound like someone with an open mind to me.

2. Doesn't seem to be a peer reviewed journal either. The only title in the bunch is an architect. Do you know how many architects there are in the world?

3. Nope. This is a letter not a journal. Jenkins appears to be with the "Hazardous Waste Identification Division." Impressive.

4. Nope. Another letter by Jenkins.

Is Vol. 11 any better?

Why don't you just pick the single one of these articles that is published in a peer reviewed journal?

Well substitute 'West' for United States and you're probably right!!

For purposes of future discussion, let's all just assume that the West is at fault for every problem in the world.

Now what?

Just so I understand, how do conspiracy theorists get around the detailed and respected 9/11 commission report which details how the 9/11 attackers came into the country, gathered their resources, and then attacked? Is the theory that they were US government agents?

Was Osama also in our pocket when he claimed credit for the attacks? I guess that's why we never found him?!

So, again:

 

Molten aluminum from the fuselage of the plane.

 

Aluminum melts at 1220F, not 2750F.

 

Jet fuel (alone), maximum burning temperature: 1796F.

 

That's more than enough to produce molten aluminum, let alone the carpets, furniture, paper, computers, etc. in the building

One of the points made in the article I cited is that the structure wouldn't have had to melt to have been weakened by the fire along with assorted over stresses.

These explanations seem completely compelling to my lay eye.

Oh, I see that this article was already "debunked" by a conspiracy web rag. Let me ask a question: Can anyone cite to a single scientific peer reviewed article that supports the conspiracy POV?

A laundry list of architects is meaningless as it constitutes probably .00001% of the architects in the world. I'd like to see peer reviewed science; in fact, I'd fully expect it to be demanded on this board.

Well, fair enough, but we can probably hazard a pretty good guess methinks...

The key word here is "guess." I'm not sure how such guesses are helpful.

I'm tempted to stipulate that the entire world's problems are entirely the fault of the United States just so we can start talking about solutions.

Man, I hope you didn't really mean that. If we were in that type of regime then we wouldn't be able to have the ability to discuss "the slippery slope".

I don't think that was her point at all but she can speak for herself.

That's fine, you can accuse me of being ignorant of the facts (and ask me to explain, as you did). What you can't do is accuse me of being ignorant of a larger subject because I appear to be ignorant about specifics. That's an appeal to ignorance, and a logical fallacy. One thing is a logical question. The other is just an insult. (Just so we're clear on this.)

 

 

 

 

I don't dispute that our "meddlings" (and I think that's a reasonable word for it) have had an impact on Iran. What I dispute is your insistence that we remove any and all responsibility for Iran's actions from... Iran. When I pointed this out to you, instead of agreeing with me that they also share responsibility for their actions, you instead accused me of being ignorant of Iranian history. Now do you see what that approach is a mistake? Had you instead agreed with me that they share responsibility for their actions, then we would have agreed on at least that one point. Completely.

 

So maybe you need to ask yourself if perhaps staying on your ideological message is more important to you than agreeing on points that we clearly do agree on (because unlike you, I don't make the assumption that you're ignorant about the larger issue of national responsibility -- I strongly suspect we agree on this).

 

By the way, staying on an ideological message rather than agreeing with a debate opponent on an issue you clearly agree with them on is an example of a closed mind.

There is a tendency to view other countries as, well, really not made of people with the same responsibilities and free will over their actions as have people in the US. They are simply objects which move hither and thither depending whatever nefarious US policy we are discussing.

We can play the "could have/should have" game with history all day long and never get it right. Should the Ottoman empire joined the Central powers in WWI? What would the Middle East look like today if the Ottomans had joined with Britain, France and the US?

Should Iran have more clearly aligned itself with the allied powers in WWII? Should Iran have nationalized the oil industry that Britain helped develop?

Neil Ferguson is a well known economic historian at Harvard who consults with the altnerate history game "Making History."

Ferguson became so delighted with Making History that he has joined forces with Muzzy Lane to design a new game. Due out in 2008, this one will model modern, real-world conflicts such as Iraq, Afghanistan and the nuclear confrontation with Iran.

 

It'll undoubtedly be controversial. But it will also, he expects, be humbling. The power of counterfactual thinking is that forces us to step outside of our comfort zones. When we think about historical events, we have 20/20 hindsight -- so we forget how confusing and uncertain they were at the time. In 1943, nobody really knew how strong Germany was, or what Stalin was thinking. In modern conflicts, we often have a similarly false sense of surety -- too much confidence in our ability to predict the outcome of major events.

 

When we play with sims, they knock us off our pedestals -- because crazy things usually happen we don't predict. Yet the chaos is useful, because we can run the same situation again and again, changing one little thing each time, until we've war-gamed it deeply and understand it better than ever.

This isn't an advertisement for the game which I think I may get for Father's day. It's simply a recognition that the blame game on the US isn't simply useless, it is simple as well.