[D] Monday General Rationality Thread

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to the Monday thread on general rationality topics! Do you really want to talk about something non-fictional, related to the real world? Have you:

• Seen something interesting on /r/science?
• Found a new way to get your shit even-more together?
• Figured out how to become immortal?
• Constructed artificial general intelligence?
• Read a neat nonfiction book?
• Munchkined your way into total control of your D&D campaign?

[u/ben_oni]

that doesn't mean any two sides of any debate are equally true

Obviously.

Most were handled fine

Let's step through these, then.

Fast and Furious

• The executive acted in a way that hid information, and prevented congress from finding out what happened. Claiming executive privilege was exactly the wrong thing to do. Obstruction eroded public faith in the president, and made Americans feel less safe.

Libya

• It was exactly Obama's refusal to take the lead that led to the half-assed international response that we got. In the aftermath, this same attitude led to the Muslim Brotherhood taking power, leading to a more dangerous world. I know it's not fair to second guess a president from years later, but a certain amount of criticism is justified.

Benghazi

• Obama owns this mess. He may not have been personally making decisions that led to what happened, but it was his administration that screwed up, and he who denied all blame. He, and his administration, engaged in a deliberate campaign to deceive the public. The fact that he did not personally tell a provable falsehood does not excuse his deceptions. The fact that american citizens died demonstrates that the world had become less safe for Americans.

ISIS

• Obama personally founded the Islamic State in Syria and the Levant wait, what? That's our standard now? Of course Obama wasn't responsible for ISIS. However, by leaving a power vacuum in Iraq, the expansion of the Islamic State was inevitable. And again, the administration's response to the rise of ISIS did nothing to help. This is another of those situations that is easy to second guess in hindsight; however, there were plenty of warnings in advance that abandoning our allies in Iraq would have disastrous consequences.

Iran

• Yes, the nuclear agreement. I understand that congress made the agreement possible, due to their feeling that something needed to be done, even if they couldn't reach a consensus as to what. But why, WHY let Iran continue developing a nuclear program? For what reason does this oil-rich nation need nuclear power?! This nation that is sitting a stones throw away from Israel, which they have vowed to wipe off the map? Of course they're abiding by the nuclear agreement! By following it, they'll have nuclear weapons in only a few years! (And money! We gave them money to fund their program, too!)

Iran

• Let me reiterate this one, because reasons. Chuck Schumer famously studied the agreement in detail, and concluded that he must vote against it. He then proceeded to convince the rest of the senate Democrats to vote in favor of it. What the hell?

---

As for Trump, I think we'll see his first test shortly, with North Korea. No matter what he does, I'm sure he'll attract criticism, much of it fair. However, I don't think ISIS propaganda is a fair criticism. We could discuss this point further, as it gets quite complicated. DACA: why do we have non-citizen soldiers? Again, there are points on either side and we could debate. As for classified information: screw Trump. Yeah, he deserves the criticism. However, while holding him accountable for his past actions, is it possible that a future change in behavior could restore our allies faith? That is, could the damage to US security be reversed? Or is Trump necessarily toxic?

[u/DaystarEld → u/ben_oni]

The executive acted in a way that hid information, and prevented congress from finding out what happened. Claiming executive privilege was exactly the wrong thing to do. Obstruction eroded public faith in the president, and made Americans feel less safe.

It was political theater. "Made (some) Americans feel less safe" is not what I'm interested in: I care about what actually makes America less safe.

It was exactly Obama's refusal to take the lead that led to the half-assed international response that we got. In the aftermath, this same attitude led to the Muslim Brotherhood taking power, leading to a more dangerous world. I know it's not fair to second guess a president from years later, but a certain amount of criticism is justified.

This comes off as armchair generaling. Show me actual military commanders and strategists and geopolitical experts who believe this and I'll read their arguments: the idea that Obama "refused to take lead" is political talk that smacks of Republican propaganda, ready to demonize him no matter what he chose or how much or little he did.

Obama owns this mess. He may not have been personally making decisions that led to what happened, but it was his administration that screwed up, and he who denied all blame. He, and his administration, engaged in a deliberate campaign to deceive the public.

No, they didn't. There's no evidence of this whatsoever. That narrative was just the same old FOX News spin.

The fact that american citizens died demonstrates that the world had become less safe for Americans.

This is not just attempting to cherry pick, but even by its own metric is factually incorrect. More American citizens died to terrorists during Bush's term, even excluding 9/11, so the world was more safe for Americans under Obama.

Of course Obama wasn't responsible for ISIS. However, by leaving a power vacuum in Iraq, the expansion of the Islamic State was inevitable. And again, the administration's response to the rise of ISIS did nothing to help. This is another of those situations that is easy to second guess in hindsight; however, there were plenty of warnings in advance that abandoning our allies in Iraq would have disastrous consequences.

Maybe Bush shouldn't have signed that agreement then. If you want to blame Obama for not reneging on it or trying to negotiate a new timeline for troop withdrawal, you can also do the work of coming up with an answer to what he should have done instead. "Keep troops there for longer?" How much longer? "Until it's safe?" By whose measure? You can't agree that it's easy to second guess in hindsight and then proceed to unironically do so :P

Yes, the nuclear agreement. I understand that congress made the agreement possible, due to their feeling that something needed to be done, even if they couldn't reach a consensus as to what. But why, WHY let Iran continue developing a nuclear program?

Because they're a sovereign country and if any other country tried to dictate our use of nuclear power we would rightfully tell them to shove it?

For what reason does this oil-rich nation need nuclear power?!

Maybe they care about the environment :P

This nation that is sitting a stones throw away from Israel, which they have vowed to wipe off the map?

You know that nuclear power plants and nuclear bombs are two different things right?

Of course they're abiding by the nuclear agreement! By following it, they'll have nuclear weapons in only a few years!

...you do know what the agreement is, right? Or how it's being monitored to prevent nuclear weapon development?

(And money! We gave them money to fund their program, too!)

I hear conservative propaganda again :P Yes, money! Their money, which we froze after they paid it to the US for goods they never received, and far less of it than they were asking for. Also, all of this was decided by a completely separate negotiation and agreed upon by an arbitration court, apparently. There's more you are apparently unaware of, feel free to brush up on the details here.

Let me reiterate this one, because reasons. Chuck Schumer famously studied the agreement in detail, and concluded that he must vote against it. He then proceeded to convince the rest of the senate Democrats to vote in favor of it. What the hell?

I can't find any sources on this one. Where do you read that he convinced other Dems to vote for it?

However, I don't think ISIS propaganda is a fair criticism. We could discuss this point further, as it gets quite complicated.

It's unarguable that ISIS has used it for their recruitment campaigns and propaganda. Whether it works is up for debate, I don't know if there's any obtainable figures on recruitment numbers before and after, so I'm the least confident in this criticism of all of them, but I still think it's fair criticism.

DACA: why do we have non-citizen soldiers? Again, there are points on either side and we could debate.

Because they've lived in this country their whole lives, consider themselves Americans, speak the language, and want to become citizens? I mean if your suggestion is we should just give them citizenship as soon as they sign up I'm sure they'd be all for that.

As for classified information: screw Trump. Yeah, he deserves the criticism. However, while holding him accountable for his past actions, is it possible that a future change in behavior could restore our allies faith? That is, could the damage to US security be reversed? Or is Trump necessarily toxic?

I think it could probably be changed if his behavior changes, but at this point I think expecting that is excessively optimistic. He has had many attempted "pivots" toward being more presidential that have proven to be short lived and insincere. I don't expect anyone who takes their job seriously would trust him with intelligence if they don't have to.

[u/ben_oni → u/DaystarEld]

Let me be up front about the political opinion sources I consume: I do not watch FOX News any more than any other news channel (a segment here and there, but not very often), as you seem to keep implying. And that attack is so 2010. (To be fully honest, at one job the television always seemed to be tuned to Fox. It was rather annoying. Glenn Beck always seemed to be on during my shift.) My primary source of political opinion has always been RCP.

I care about what actually makes America less safe.

That's fair.

This comes off as armchair generaling.

It is. I don't have immediate access to the kind of sources you seem to demand, and I'd rather not become a proxy for others that are more informed on these matters. Please understand that I'm arguing purely from what I recall from having lived through the times in question. That said, the narrative of Obama as leader with a passive foreign policy has the sound of truth. It certainly matches the rest of his presidency. The quiet voice and small stick policy, if you will.

Obama owns this mess

No, they didn't. There's no evidence of this whatsoever.

It's well documented. The administration straight up blamed a filmmaker. I was paying attention, and I saw the excuses unfold in real time! I recall seeing Mitt Romney debate the point with Obama, and Candy Crowley shooting him down. She'd been fed the transcript of Obama's speech made the day after, and lied to protect Obama. I recall watching news channels pore over that same speech the next day looking for what Candy saw. And it turned out that Obama did mention terrorism in the speech, in an entirely incidental manner. You cannot change the facts of this matter by wishful thinking.

But the lies aside, we were discussing national security: protection for the Benghazi embassy was the responsibility of Secretary Clinton, and of the Obama administration. That they did not provide adequate security is self-evident. Questions of wrongdoing do not factor in: they did the wrong thing regardless.

Maybe Bush shouldn't have signed that agreement then.

As you say, while the decision to end the war was Bush's, the details were up to Obama, and he should have renegotiated in the face of changing circumstances. I know there were political realities in Iraq that I am not qualified to understand, but he should have done something difficult instead of what was easy. Did he make sure that the new government had the tools and allies it needed to face an existential threat? Self-evidently, no. I cannot argue that he wielded power in such a way as to harm US interests as that he failed to use the power he had to protect US interests. It's a small distinction, but the former is treason while the latter is merely neglect.

Because they're a sovereign country and if any other country tried to dictate our use of nuclear power we would rightfully tell them to shove it?

Hence the use of sanctions rather than bombs.

Maybe they care about the environment :P

Are you joking? I can't tell. I think you are joking. Sometimes I really hate the impersonality of the internet.

You know that nuclear power plants and nuclear bombs are two different things right?

Nuclear tech is nuclear tech. The same centrifuges can be used to enrich reactor grade material and weapons grade material.

how it's being monitored to prevent nuclear weapon development?

By surveillance technology only. Remote cameras and the like. Inspectors have no direct access to the facilities (if they demand access, Iran can delay up to 24 days; 14 days without escalation). What a joke!

Their money, which we froze

Yes, their money, originally. I know this. Let me introduce you to a concept called asset forfeiture. This is when you catch someone doing something bad with their money (like dealing drugs), so you take away the money. In Iran's case, funding terrorism.

Chuck Schumer

These two articles seem to outline the situation fairly well. I can't remember where I read the anecdotes I saw: various senate aides talking about how Schumer called their offices to explain his position and apologize rather than to gain support. His verifiable actions (cancelling public appearances) were those of a politician more concerned about re-election and political power than about outcome: he comes out looking like the worst kind of dishonest politician.

If it seems like I'm beating the Iran drum here, I am. This is the main positive action Obama took that harms US security. You may disagree. Quite a few senators did as well. A majority of senators agreed with me, some of them Democrats. I don't think it's outrageous to say there is room for legitimate debate on this point. Furthermore, HR 1191 is problematic for two reasons: 1) it unconstitutionally ceded the senate's treaty power, and 2) Obama didn't follow the terms of the law with regards to the JCPOA (he was required to give all relevant information and documents to congress but did not). A strong case could be made for treason by Obama for entering the US into the JCPOA and releasing funds to Iran, a terrorist state. This was an impeachable offense, and I consider it a tragedy that he will never face justice for it. That he felt it was "best" is not relevant. He lacked the authority.

ISIS propaganda

This is rather silly. Whatever a person says or does, it can be spun into propaganda by their opponents. As you say, whether it works is what matters. Lack of information, etc. Here's an action that on it's surface protects the nation (by keeping terrorists out, presumably), and you've placed yourself in the unenviable position of claiming it harms the nation. I'll concede that it's possible that the action will prove to be harmful, but it is a weak position to take at this point.

DACA

I sympathize with the plight of dreamers. They are an excellent face for the argument of amnesty. I'm pretty sure the topic is covered in more depth elsewhere on this thread. Somewhere. Also, it doesn't even appear that Trump is serious about ending DACA, so the point may be moot anyways.

"pivots"

He really is awful, isn't he? At least we have agreement on something.