untrusted

[Vampyr]

Do you mean Germany should get this right in >>>

 

a) 100 years

b) 250 years

c) 500 years

d) Never

 

after 1945?

 

I think more than 100, but less than 250.

[Aberlour10]

I think more than 100, but less than 250.

 

In the same period of time Germans will loose probably this strong feeling that they are still living at the occupied territory.

[Vampyr]

In the same period of time Germans will loose probably this strong feeling that they are still living at the occupied territory.

 

Good, then everyone will be happy.

 

Christ that's the last time I'll ever post a joke!

[Aberlour10]

Good, then everyone will be happy.

 

Christ that's the last time I'll ever post a joke!

 

 

Good that was just a joke by you.

Unfortunately that statement has been meant very seriousely by so many people, hard to judge.

[Vampyr]

Good that was just a joke by you.

Unfortunately that statement has been meant very seriousely by so many people, hard to judge.

 

It wasn't a joke "by me". I just quoted a line from the news that I thought was very funny, as did the writers of Have I Got News for You. I thought that taking it seriously would be a stretch, but obviously some reporters did, because it was repeated on a number of internet news sites with no obvious tongue in anyone's cheek.

[Trinidad]

That's just too bad.

 

I would have really hoped that:

 

In fact, I wonder whether Germany has the right yet to criticise anything any country is doing.

was intended as a joke.

 

Rik

[barmar]

But yeah, that's hyperbole of overarching measure.

News reporters have to be hyperbolic. After all, we're living in a time when right-wing politicians and news commentators frequently describe the ACA as the worst law in the history of the US, i.e. worse than laws like Jim Crow.

[blackshoe]

News reporters have to be hyperbolic. After all, we're living in a time when right-wing politicians and news commentators frequently describe the ACA as the worst law in the history of the US, i.e. worse than laws like Jim Crow.

So the justification for hyperbole in news reporting is that somebody else did it first? What are we, five?

 

US Law is replete with bad examples. Some gore one ox, some another. We should be trying to get rid of all bad laws, not just the ones that gore our personal ox.

 

On a side note: Who was Jim Crow?

[FM75]

Game Theory. Thomas Schelling.

 

I would be seriously disappointed in our government if it were not spying on all foreign governments. (Just like they are doing, to the extent that they can afford to do so.)

[y66]

From Unlocking Secrets, If Not Its Own Value by Quentin Hardy in today's NYT:

 

Palantir began in the mind of Peter Thiel, the Silicon Valley investor and PayPal founder. He began thinking about it in 2003, a year after he sold PayPal to eBay. It was two years after the terrorist attacks on the United States, and Mr. Thiel, a fierce libertarian, wondered if the world could be made safer without losing freedoms.

 

“I felt we were drifting to a place in the U.S. we’d have a lot fewer civil liberties and no real effective protection,” Mr. Thiel said. He enlisted Mr. Karp, a college friend, as well as veterans of PayPal and his investment fund.

 

A big fan of J.R.R. Tolkien, he named Palantir after a set of magic stones in “The Lord of the Rings” that grant powerful people the ability to see the truth from afar. The company headquarters are called the Shire, after the home of the Hobbits.

 

Palantir’s founders started with an idea from PayPal. At one point, PayPal was losing the equivalent of 150 percent of its revenue to stolen credit card numbers. It figured out how computers could spot activity — like a flurry of payments to a brand new account — at a global scale. The flagged actions would then be put before a PayPal employee to investigate.

 

Palantir’s founders thought the same approach would work for national security. Almost no one in the venture capital world agreed except the C.I.A.’s venture fund, which gave Palantir $2 million; Mr. Thiel eventually put in about $30 million of his own money. In-Q-Tel gave the founders introductions to the C.I.A. and other spy outfits.

 

Palantir’s first full-fledged C.I.A. job was in 2008. Mr. Karp got more work from word of mouth, and donated Palantir’s technology to cyberactivists, who mapped Russian hackers attacking the nation of Georgia in 2008. (The spyware was rumored to have found Osama bin Laden, but Palantir would not confirm or deny such jobs.)

 

To drum up private-sector business, Mr. Thiel called on Mr. Ovitz, whom he knew through Marc Andreessen, the former Netscape whiz kid turned venture capitalist. At first, Mr. Ovitz thought Palantir could be used in selling online ads, but the housing crisis changed his thinking. Banks had thousands of homes in foreclosure and no idea how to efficiently clear the backlog in a collapsing market.

 

"The idea was to pick one bank, and the rest would follow,” Mr. Ovitz said. JPMorgan was the first. Much as Palantir figured out navigating Baghdad by analyzing recent roadside attacks, satellite images and moon phases, it derived home-sale prices by looking at school enrollments, employment trends and retail sales. Data that JPMorgan thought would take two years to integrate was put into action in eight days.

 

JPMorgan still uses Palantir for cybersecurity, fraud detection and other work, loading half a terabyte of data onto a Palantir system each day, according to a Palantir video. A spokesman for JPMorgan said the bank uses Palantir, but would not comment on specific projects.

 

Morgan Stanley is another customer.

 

“No human can look at all the data sources at one time,” said Jim Rosenthal, Morgan Stanley’s chief operating officer. The company uses Palantir to spot money laundering and employee theft, as well as for cybersecurity.

 

Government clients also struggle with a data explosion. “Everything becomes more difficult, the more crime becomes global, the more state actors are involved, the more trades there are around the globe,” said Preet Bharara, United States attorney for the Southern District of New York. “It’s malpractice to have records and not search them.” He has used Palantir for several cases, including the SAC investigation.

 

Investors are growing restless. Mr. Karp says he hears from them nearly every day. Joe Lonsdale, a co-founder who left to form his own investment firm, still has shares in the company and has stated in online forums that Palantir will go public. But while an I.P.O. may be hard to resist forever, Mr. Thiel said in an email that Palantir “has no plans to I.P.O. in the next few years.”

 

Palantir is now Palo Alto’s biggest tenant after Stanford, occupying about 250,000 square feet in downtown buildings, which hold many of Palantir’s 1,500 employees. Contracts around the world have surged as everyone’s data increases in size and diversity. Mr. Karp thinks the firm can grow to 5,000 employees for its maximum effectiveness, without, he says, the possibly corrupting influence of going public.

 

In Tolkien’s tale, the world was saved from darkness. The Shire, though, became an industrial wasteland. Mr. Karp hopes that Palantir can save itself, along with the world.

[y66]

I see that James Risen, who has also written about Palantir, has a new book out. Just started reading the chapter called "The New Oligarchs". Whoa. This is going to kill Winston.

[PassedOut]

I see that James Risen, who has also written about Palantir, has a new book out. Just started reading the chapter called "The New Oligarchs". Whoa. This is going to kill Winston.

 

Risen takes us through the way $20 billion was sent to Iraq with little or no oversight and without any clear direction on how it should be spent. Most of this money was flown from East Rutherford, N.J., in bricks of $100 bills. Pallets of cash were distributed at will. Today $11.7 billion remains unaccounted for. Much of it made its way into private bank accounts; apparently about $2 billion is hidden in Lebanon. (I cant help thinking what $20 billion, or even the missing $11.7 billion, would do for homelessness and for schools in Americas most blighted urban areas.)

This doesn't make me happy either, to say the least. And especially since it was clear even before we attacked that the people in the region would sort things out for themselves when the US left, no matter when that was. Naturally the idiots in congress voted for the authorization -- along with the politicians on both sides that voted for it even though they knew it was utterly stupid to do so -- because they feared losing the votes of the morons who agreed with them at the time.

 

And the same thing is going to happen with the situation in Iraq and Syria now. Already we're hearing fools in Washington demanding that US troops be sent to do what only the people who live there can do. And, sure enough, polls are showing that the moron vote is moving in that direction.

:angry:

[Winstonm]

I see that James Risen, who has also written about Palantir, has a new book out. Just started reading the chapter called "The New Oligarchs". Whoa. This is going to kill Winston.

 

And when I die, and when I'm gone, there'll be one child born in this world to carry on, to carry on.

[kenberg]

And the same thing is going to happen with the situation in Iraq and Syria now. Already we're hearing fools in Washington demanding that US troops be sent to do what only the people who live there can do. And, sure enough, polls are showing that the moron vote is moving in that direction.

:angry:

 

Well, my view does ot follow either of these lines. What I see our president saying can be summarized: ISIL is a grave threat to the interests of our country, to the Middle Eat, and to the world. We are going to degrade it and we are gong to destroy it. Unless of course it would require ground troops, in which case screw it, I'll be writing my memoirs.

[kenberg]

And the same thing is going to happen with the situation in Iraq and Syria now. Already we're hearing fools in Washington demanding that US troops be sent to do what only the people who live there can do. And, sure enough, polls are showing that the moron vote is moving in that direction.

:angry:

 

Here is my understanding of the President's position: ISIL is a grave threat to our interests, to peace in the Middle East, and to the world. We are going to degrade it and then we will destroy it. Unless of course it requires ground troops, in which case screw it.

 

This does not inspire confidence.

 

This (inevitably and probably superficially) has been compared to Viet Nam. Probably to no good purpose. But I do recall some advice given by a military person early in that war, when Johnson was picking and choosing his targets: "It really isn't a good idea to bomb people just enough to make them mad."

[Winstonm]

Here is my understanding of the President's position: ISIL is a grave threat to our interests, to peace in the Middle East, and to the world. We are going to degrade it and then we will destroy it. Unless of course it requires ground troops, in which case screw it.

 

This does not inspire confidence.

 

This (inevitably and probably superficially) has been compared to Viet Nam. Probably to no good purpose. But I do recall some advice given by a military person early in that war, when Johnson was picking and choosing his targets: "It really isn't a good idea to bomb people just enough to make them mad."

 

I think the President is simply acknowledging the limits of military intervention.

[kenberg]

I think the President is simply acknowledging the limits of military intervention.

 

No. it is clear how to say that, if that is what he wished to say. Announcing that we are going to degrade it and destroy it is not my idea of acknowledging the limits of power. There used to be this song: First you say you will, and then you won't, then you say you do, and then you don't. ....

His approach brings this to mind.

 

I have no idea what we should do. But I am not the President. It is worrisome that he seems to have no idea either. Or, if we go by his words, he has two ideas that unfortunately are in direct contradiction to each other.

 

Of course he has explained that there is no contradiction, he is completely confident that we will degrade and destroy ISIL without the use of our ground troops. Most predictions of military success fall short. "We will be greeted as liberators". "The troops will be home by Christmas". Etc.

 

It is completely fair to ask what the plan is if air strikes do not suffice. It is fair to ask how this will jibe with degrade and destroy.

 

This is very worrisome. I think that our current president and his immediate predecessor have not been adequately up to the job.

[PassedOut]

Here is my understanding of the President's position: ISIL is a grave threat to our interests, to peace in the Middle East, and to the world. We are going to degrade it and then we will destroy it. Unless of course it requires ground troops, in which case screw it.

 

This does not inspire confidence.

 

This (inevitably and probably superficially) has been compared to Viet Nam. Probably to no good purpose. But I do recall some advice given by a military person early in that war, when Johnson was picking and choosing his targets: "It really isn't a good idea to bomb people just enough to make them mad."

Yes, this double-talk is in line with the whole "global war on terror" meme in which we all fight it by going about our daily business unperturbed, to "keep the terrorists from winning."

 

I don't know all of the reasons why Obama and most other politicians simply can't be honest about the situation, but I can guess a few of them. Clearly the pants-pisser vote weighs heavily in the November elections, and the democrats are trying (pitifully) to pander. What is clear, as it was before the Iraq invasion, is that nothing good will come from sending in our ground forces. And nothing good will come of the airstrikes either, if no one who lives there cares to fight. The ISIL people are from that area. We are not.

 

It's true that lots of US mistakes after the invasion of Iraq made things worse. We didn't have to send all of the old Iraqi military off to form an opposing army, for example. But it was never going to end well, and everyone with common sense knew that.

[Winstonm]

There are two distinct threat types: one is a terrorist organization; the other is a enemy state. Against the first, ground troops do not succeed often according to the people who study these things (Rand Corporation). AT this point, there is no genuine enemy state to dismantle with ground forces.

 

I have always stated that this President had too little experience - and surrounding himself with Chicago cronies has backfired as well. It has been decades since we had a truly good President, and I see no reason to think that will change two years from now.

[mike777]

I am shocked that Winston finds any threat to the usa beyond the super rich or republicans.

[kenberg]

There are two distinct threat types: one is a terrorist organization; the other is a enemy state. Against the first, ground troops do not succeed often according to the people who study these things (Rand Corporation). AT this point, there is no genuine enemy state to dismantle with ground forces.

 

I have always stated that this President had too little experience - and surrounding himself with Chicago cronies has backfired as well. It has been decades since we had a truly good President, and I see no reason to think that will two years from now.

 

I am by no means arguing in favor of ground troops. My point is a different one.

 

If a president wishes to go before the nation and the world and announce that the Islamic State is a grave threat that we will degrade and destroy, then his next words need to be "and we will do whatever is needed to accomplish this". If he is not prepared to say this second part, and such restraint may well be right, then he should not say the first part.

 

We want people to join us. Why on Earth would they? Here is something to consider: I would expect that when our president announces the use of American power to degrade and destroy ISIL, or degrade and destroy anything, it woould prompt a great deal of discussion. Well, we now have some discussion here, but mostly, at least among people I know, this announcement is ignored. No one pays much attention to what Obama says, his words are not taken seriously. This is not a good state of affairs.

[blackshoe]

The President of the United States used to be acknowledged as "the leader of the free world". Some people still claim that, I suppose, but no one is paying any attention to Obama, so how can he lead anything?

[PassedOut]

If a president wishes to go before the nation and the world and announce that the Islamic State is a grave threat that we will degrade and destroy, then his next words need to be "and we will do whatever is needed to accomplish this". If he is not prepared to say this second part, and such restraint may well be right, then he should not say the first part.

Absolutely right.

 

Of course it is nonsense that the Islamic state is a grave threat. Over the years, we in the US have often been fed such nonsense -- about the menace of communism, about the need to fight Asians "over there" so we don't have to fight "over here," about the threat of terrorism, and so on.

 

But usually this stuff comes from the dolts who actually want to whip up war frenzy. Obama clearly knows that sending troops back in there would be stupid, so he debases his own credibility when he talks like that. In effect, he has put pressure on himself to do the wrong thing.

 

As dumb as those (and other) statements of Obama have been, it would be even dumber to give in to the idiots who are demanding that he send US troops back into that battlefield.

[barmar]

I think leaders have to put a positive spin on things like this, and speak optimistically. Acknowledging that we can't win just degrades morale. It may be true, but how does saying it help? The best he can do is explain that it will be long and tough, to avoid raising expectations too much.

[PassedOut]

The President of the United States used to be acknowledged as "the leader of the free world". Some people still claim that, I suppose, but no one is paying any attention to Obama, so how can he lead anything?

We're paying attention to him right now, and there is no way not to pay attention the holder of his office. It would be preferable for him to have better leadership skills, but mere leadership skill is not nearly so important as the ability to make informed decisions. In that department, Obama stands head and shoulders above his predecessor.

 

I think leaders have to put a positive spin on things like this, and speak optimistically. Acknowledging that we can't win just degrades morale. It may be true, but how does saying it help? The best he can do is explain that it will be long and tough, to avoid raising expectations too much.

They seem to feel that way, and I'm sure that their handlers keep pushing that. But the whole idea of the US winning or losing just doesn't apply here unless leaders set it up that way artificially. So why do it?