Let's do the time warp again!!!!

[Sea Skimmer]

The peaceniks never offered a viable alternative to war, eh? Perhaps the alternative was ... peace? It's interesting how this argument was so utterly confident in the presence of this WMD program that it simply assumed that there was no alternative but to invade.

And so let’s say the US removes no fly zones, removes sanctions, inspectors leave and go home the job done. Peace breaks out for everyone, well everyone who doesn’t look cross eyed at Saddam anyway, they still get massacred every couple years. Then what stops Saddam from rebuilding his military with the massive revenue from rising world oil prices and reverting the situation to that of 1990? The invasion was certainly a mistake, but just saying we could have peace instead, when a real peace did not exist before hand is not being very honest. It would be quite impossible to have a real peace and yet prevent Saddam from building new WMDs at the same time, too many of the items required are duel use. This is why the sanctions supposedly aimed at such weapons programs utterly crippled Iraq, and prevented the importation or production of such basic essentials as chlorine for water purification.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The peaceniks never offered a viable alternative to war, eh? Perhaps the alternative was ... peace? It's interesting how this argument was so utterly confident in the presence of this WMD program that it simply assumed that there was no alternative but to invade.

And so let’s say the US removes no fly zones, removes sanctions, inspectors leave and go home the job done. Peace breaks out for everyone, well everyone who doesn’t look cross eyed at Saddam anyway, they still get massacred every couple years. Then what stops Saddam from rebuilding his military with the massive revenue from rising world oil prices and reverting the situation to that of 1990? The invasion was certainly a mistake, but just saying we could have peace instead, when a real peace did not exist before hand is not being very honest. It would be quite impossible to have a real peace and yet prevent Saddam from building new WMDs at the same time, too many of the items required are duel use. This is why the sanctions supposedly aimed at such weapons programs utterly crippled Iraq, and prevented the importation or production of such basic essentials as chlorine for water purification.

Why can't the U.S. do what everyone else does when they have a tiff and don't have the credit and expeditionary force to go invade countries on the other side of the world? Rapproachment. The truth is, it is totally impractical to try and prevent a given country from being able to develop chemical weapons forever. You work out a settlement with the clear understanding you will call for inspections and bring back no fly zones and what have you if there is more problems. The truth is that invading Iraq did more to hasten the fall of America from the position of a sole unopposed superpower, and to advance both the internal and foreign aims of AQ.

[Big Phil]

The peaceniks never offered a viable alternative to war, eh? Perhaps the alternative was ... peace? It's interesting how this argument was so utterly confident in the presence of this WMD program that it simply assumed that there was no alternative but to invade.

And so let’s say the US removes no fly zones, removes sanctions, inspectors leave and go home the job done. Peace breaks out for everyone, well everyone who doesn’t look cross eyed at Saddam anyway, they still get massacred every couple years. Then what stops Saddam from rebuilding his military with the massive revenue from rising world oil prices and reverting the situation to that of 1990? The invasion was certainly a mistake, but just saying we could have peace instead, when a real peace did not exist before hand is not being very honest. It would be quite impossible to have a real peace and yet prevent Saddam from building new WMDs at the same time, too many of the items required are duel use. This is why the sanctions supposedly aimed at such weapons programs utterly crippled Iraq, and prevented the importation or production of such basic essentials as chlorine for water purification.

Why can't the U.S. do what everyone else does when they have a tiff and don't have the credit and expeditionary force to go invade countries on the other side of the world? Rapproachment. The truth is, it is totally impractical to try and prevent a given country from being able to develop chemical weapons forever. You work out a settlement with the clear understanding you will call for inspections and bring back no fly zones and what have you if there is more problems. The truth is that invading Iraq did more to hasten the fall of America from the position of a sole unopposed superpower, and to advance both the internal and foreign aims of AQ.

And what other countries are able to successfully bribe their opponents without the threat of military force to back up the bribe? Can you offer an example where a global or regional power didn't use (at least) the threat of military force to back up their diplomacy?

[Illuminatus Primus]

And what other countries are able to successfully bribe their opponents without the threat of military force to back up the bribe? Can you offer an example where a global or regional power didn't use (at least) the threat of military force to back up their diplomacy?

Yes, and clearly if we offered them a carrot, along with a stick, with our history, we just would never use our many career groups against them.

[Big Phil]

And what other countries are able to successfully bribe their opponents without the threat of military force to back up the bribe? Can you offer an example where a global or regional power didn't use (at least) the threat of military force to back up their diplomacy?

Yes, and clearly if we offered them a carrot, along with a stick, with our history, we just would never use our many career groups against them.

In other words, you can't back up your claim. Surprise, surprise...

[K. A. Pital]

Then what stops Saddam from rebuilding his military with the massive revenue from rising world oil prices and reverting the situation to that of 1990?

The threat of the US coming down on him like a ton of bricks. Because he didn't do anything by 2003 either, where oil prices have already been rising steadily.

[Guardsman Bass]

The peaceniks never offered a viable alternative to war, eh? Perhaps the alternative was ... peace? It's interesting how this argument was so utterly confident in the presence of this WMD program that it simply assumed that there was no alternative but to invade.

And so let’s say the US removes no fly zones, removes sanctions, inspectors leave and go home the job done. Peace breaks out for everyone, well everyone who doesn’t look cross eyed at Saddam anyway, they still get massacred every couple years. Then what stops Saddam from rebuilding his military with the massive revenue from rising world oil prices and reverting the situation to that of 1990? The invasion was certainly a mistake, but just saying we could have peace instead, when a real peace did not exist before hand is not being very honest. It would be quite impossible to have a real peace and yet prevent Saddam from building new WMDs at the same time, too many of the items required are duel use. This is why the sanctions supposedly aimed at such weapons programs utterly crippled Iraq, and prevented the importation or production of such basic essentials as chlorine for water purification.

You could pin the promise of no sanctions on oil sales on Saddam keeping Iraq open to inspectors at any time or place. If he doesn't co-operate, you slam them down again, and start moving troops into place (but not necessarily to invade).


Aside from that, I\it's not like we wouldn't see a re-militarization drive on his part coming from afar. If he starts making a massive move to re-build the Iraqi army, then we set up guys in position to slow down any possible advance until we can get troops back into play. At which point, if he's stupid enough to attack a neighbor (other than Iran, and even then . . .), you hammer his forces from above until you get your own troops back into play, and finish him off (this time, probably, with a greenlight from Saudi Arabia and the like to remove him from power).

[Illuminatus Primus]

And what other countries are able to successfully bribe their opponents without the threat of military force to back up the bribe? Can you offer an example where a global or regional power didn't use (at least) the threat of military force to back up their diplomacy?

Yes, and clearly if we offered them a carrot, along with a stick, with our history, we just would never use our many career groups against them.

In other words, you can't back up your claim. Surprise, surprise...

Of course I can. Why wouldn't they think we would use our carrier groups and air forces against them? We'd previously trounced their army, sponsored internal rebellions, pushed debilitating sanctions on them, constantly bombed them to enforce no-fly zones, and launched a previous devastating air campaign. No, the onus on you to support the laughable assertion that simply because we compromised on something that Iraq would suddenly believe the most interventionist country on Earth would just ignore it if they broke terms.

[Darth Wong]

And what other countries are able to successfully bribe their opponents without the threat of military force to back up the bribe? Can you offer an example where a global or regional power didn't use (at least) the threat of military force to back up their diplomacy?

Yes, and clearly if we offered them a carrot, along with a stick, with our history, we just would never use our many career groups against them.

In other words, you can't back up your claim. Surprise, surprise...

Are you seriously saying that it is impossible to bribe someone without the threat of military force to "back up the bribe?" I don't know if you're playing games or you're just dumb as a stump, but you use military force to back up a threat, not a bribe. Bribes are backed up with tangible incentives, not military force.

[Big Phil]

Of course I can. Why wouldn't they think we would use our carrier groups and air forces against them? We'd previously trounced their army, sponsored internal rebellions, pushed debilitating sanctions on them, constantly bombed them to enforce no-fly zones, and launched a previous devastating air campaign. No, the onus on you to support the laughable assertion that simply because we compromised on something that Iraq would suddenly believe the most interventionist country on Earth would just ignore it if they broke terms.

Did you even read my original post, you illiterate, mindless sack of shit? You claimed that other countries successfully utilize rapprochement when they have issues with other countries. I asked you for successful examples of rapprochement (to be fair, I used the term bribery instead), and you haven't provided any. Instead you're responding with bullshit about carrier battle groups and use of force.

Are you seriously saying that it is impossible to bribe someone without the threat of military force to "back up the bribe?" I don't know if you're playing games or you're just dumb as a stump, but you use military force to back up a threat, not a bribe. Bribes are backed up with tangible incentives, not military force.

I'm saying that I don't think IP can actually provide an example of where someone other than a viable military power has successfully used bribery or rapprochement to, as he said "do what everyone else does when they have a tiff and don't have the credit and expeditionary force to go invade countries on the other side of the world? Rapproachment. The truth is, it is totally impractical to try and prevent a given country from being able to develop chemical weapons forever. You work out a settlement with the clear understanding you will call for inspections and bring back no fly zones and what have you if there is more problems."

Of course he's such an idiot that he references the possible use of force while talking about rapprochement, without even realizing the contradiction. "Everyone else in the world is so civilized they use diplomacy, except when it doesn't work and then they use military force."

[Darth Wong]

I'm saying that I don't think IP can actually provide an example of where someone other than a viable military power has successfully used bribery or rapprochement to, as he said "do what everyone else does when they have a tiff and don't have the credit and expeditionary force to go invade countries on the other side of the world? Rapproachment. The truth is, it is totally impractical to try and prevent a given country from being able to develop chemical weapons forever. You work out a settlement with the clear understanding you will call for inspections and bring back no fly zones and what have you if there is more problems."

Of course he's such an idiot that he references the possible use of force while talking about rapprochement, without even realizing the contradiction. "Everyone else in the world is so civilized they use diplomacy, except when it doesn't work and then they use military force."

Diplomacy can and does involve the threat of force, but there are many levels of military threat other than full-scale invasion and occupation. There is no need for your ridiculous false dilemma between "all carrot and no stick" and "all stick and no carrot".

[Big Phil]

I'm saying that I don't think IP can actually provide an example of where someone other than a viable military power has successfully used bribery or rapprochement to, as he said "do what everyone else does when they have a tiff and don't have the credit and expeditionary force to go invade countries on the other side of the world? Rapproachment. The truth is, it is totally impractical to try and prevent a given country from being able to develop chemical weapons forever. You work out a settlement with the clear understanding you will call for inspections and bring back no fly zones and what have you if there is more problems."

Of course he's such an idiot that he references the possible use of force while talking about rapprochement, without even realizing the contradiction. "Everyone else in the world is so civilized they use diplomacy, except when it doesn't work and then they use military force."

Diplomacy can and does involve the threat of force, but there are many levels of military threat other than full-scale invasion and occupation. There is no need for your ridiculous false dilemma between "all carrot and no stick" and "all stick and no carrot".

Totally agree with you, but I'd like to see some successful examples.

[weemadando]

Are you seriously saying that it is impossible to bribe someone without the threat of military force to "back up the bribe?" I don't know if you're playing games or you're just dumb as a stump, but you use military force to back up a threat, not a bribe. Bribes are backed up with tangible incentives, not military force.

Mike, Mike, Mike. Don't you know? A-rabs only understand force. They're dumb and violent and irrational. You've got to use force, otherwise how will the voters know that you're doing something good?

[Darth Wong]

I'm saying that I don't think IP can actually provide an example of where someone other than a viable military power has successfully used bribery or rapprochement to, as he said "do what everyone else does when they have a tiff and don't have the credit and expeditionary force to go invade countries on the other side of the world? Rapproachment. The truth is, it is totally impractical to try and prevent a given country from being able to develop chemical weapons forever. You work out a settlement with the clear understanding you will call for inspections and bring back no fly zones and what have you if there is more problems."

Of course he's such an idiot that he references the possible use of force while talking about rapprochement, without even realizing the contradiction. "Everyone else in the world is so civilized they use diplomacy, except when it doesn't work and then they use military force."

Diplomacy can and does involve the threat of force, but there are many levels of military threat other than full-scale invasion and occupation. There is no need for your ridiculous false dilemma between "all carrot and no stick" and "all stick and no carrot".

Totally agree with you, but I'd like to see some successful examples.

How about the entire Cold War? The US had to negotiate with Russia with nothing but a deterrent that both sides knew neither side actually wanted to use. They certainly had no credible option to invade and occupy Russia.

[K. A. Pital]

I don't understand the bullcrap idea that "we had to invade Saddam in 2003, since 10 years later he would rebuild his army". How the fuck would you even know? He didn't re-build it up to 2003. And even if he did, so? Do you have any right to dictate which nation can build armies and which cannot?

Not to mention that any buildup would be noticed in advance.

But of course "future threat" in X years of time justifies attack on anyone, anywhere, anytime. What a fucktastic worldview, people. I mean, go ahead and attack Russia. It's a "future threat" since it rebuilds it's army and can badly maul your allied in the region (their own behaviour is irrelevant, ally is ally). Oh right, you can't, we have nukes.

Truly the US "foreign policy" is pathetic in it's simplicity. "We beat up everyone we want to, except those who can strike back at us".

[TrailerParkJawa]

I don't understand the bullcrap idea that "we had to invade Saddam in 2003, since 10 years later he would rebuild his army". How the fuck would you even know? He didn't re-build it up to 2003. And even if he did, so? Do you have any right to dictate which nation can build armies and which cannot?

Not to mention that any buildup would be noticed in advance.

The Iraq military of 1990 turned out to be far less capable than it was portrayed. So I don't buy the argument that he would have been a re-consituted threat either.

[Darth Wong]

I just realized that SanchezTheWhaler thinks there is no mechanism for getting people to hold up their end of the bargain if you use bribes rather than military threats, which is why his argument is constructed the way it is. Apparently, he doesn't realize that the mechanism for doing this is to simply withhold the bribe money; no idiot pays up front for a future period of compliance and then uses the threat of military force to get the other side to uphold his end of the bargain; he pays for compliance over time, and cuts off the money if compliance ceases.

[weemadando]

I don't understand the bullcrap idea that "we had to invade Saddam in 2003, since 10 years later he would rebuild his army". How the fuck would you even know? He didn't re-build it up to 2003. And even if he did, so? Do you have any right to dictate which nation can build armies and which cannot?

What, didn't the Versailles Treaty and the rise of the Third Reich teach you anything? After imposing draconian restrictions on a defeated foe, you have to ensure that you beat them down again before they have a chance to rebuild... I mean durr. Seriously, if those damn Frenchies and Poms had taken a harder line on enforcing the Versailles treaty WW2 wouldn't have happened.

[The Romulan Republic]

Re-reading some of the Iraq threads is prety interesting, and pretty embarrasing. I was embarrasingly pro-war at the time of the invasion, and I'm honestly surprised at myself, looking a back at some of the things I posted. I would never try to argue some of that bullshit now. It's easy to forget now just how strong the conservative mood of the country (and of this board) was at that time. Makes me wonder, if we fast forward 5-6 years if the mood will swing back towards the conservatives.

If an actual WMD attack ever occurs, their will be scarcely a liberal on this board, I promise you that. It'll be all "rally behind the Dear Leader," just like after 911.

[Sidewinder]

Kerry has many serious flaws as a politician, but you're comparing him to the most disastrous mistake the American voters have collectively made in my lifetime.

And seriously, going after him for gaffes? Bush has made so many of them that people have become accustomed to it. They think it's part of his charm, for fuck's sake. Flip-flopping? Bush is the master of the flip-flop. His presidency has borne almost no resemblance whatsoever to his campaign promises. Scandals? Bush has been mired in scandal after scandal after scandal, many of which involve flagrant disregard for the law, not stupid shit like "not being patriotic enough". None of that shit hurt him or the GOP until Americans hit the magic 5 year mark and got tired of the Iraq war, and even that didn't hurt nearly as much as Americans suddenly discovering that they couldn't afford to buy a new H2 Hummer on bad credit after all.

You seem to be under the impression Kerry would've governed the US better than Bush from 2005-2009. Do you have support for this BESIDES wishful thinking? Bear in mind, Kerry voted yea on H.J.Res. 114, "A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq"; yea to S.Amdt. 2336 to H.R. 3338, "To protect United States military personnel and other elected appointed officials of the United States Government against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United States is not a party"; yea for the Patriot Act; and yea for S.Amdt. 1901 to S. 1510, "To modify the provisions relating to access to business records under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978," which, if I'm reading the legalese correctly, loosens restrictions on government agencies' ability to perform wiretaps.

As for his allegation that US military servicemen committed multiple atrocities in Vietnam, including rape, torture, mutilation, BEFORE the evidence was publicized by the US military servicemen who investigated these allegations; if I claimed people who attended the University of Waterloo are more likely to be guilty of sexual assault and child molestation, but didn't provide any evidence to support this claim, you and your family would be very offended, wouldn't you? Kerry not only offended US military service members and their families in his 1971 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he failed to support those claims with evidence; he didn't say, "I know men who have witnessed those atrocities and are willing to testify in court"; he didn't say, "I have photographs of US military servicemen committing rape, torture, and mutilation" or "I have a film which captures US military servicemen committing rape, torture, and mutilation," and present the visual records to the press; he didn't say, "The Vietnam War Crimes Working Group documented multiple cases in which US military servicemen weren't punished for war crimes they committed, and the Pentagon has suppressed those documents to prevent the American public from knowing of those crimes." Without evidence to support his allegations, Kerry ended up looking like a transsexual Jane Fonda, someone who insults US military service members just for LULZ.

[Darth Wong]

You seem to be under the impression Kerry would've governed the US better than Bush from 2005-2009. Do you have support for this BESIDES wishful thinking?

I don't need it. We had very good evidence that Bush would do a horrible job. In that context, the onus is on you to show that Kerry would have been just as bad, if not worse. Particularly since many of Bush's misdeeds were a matter of intent, not just incompetence.

Bear in mind, Kerry voted yea on H.J.Res. 114, "A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq"; yea to S.Amdt. 2336 to H.R. 3338, "To protect United States military personnel and other elected appointed officials of the United States Government against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United States is not a party"; yea for the Patriot Act; and yea for S.Amdt. 1901 to S. 1510, "To modify the provisions relating to access to business records under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978," which, if I'm reading the legalese correctly, loosens restrictions on government agencies' ability to perform wiretaps.

So the worst you can say about Kerry (relative to Bush) is that he supported some of the bad things Bush did? Are you mentally retarded or something?

As for his allegation that US military servicemen committed multiple atrocities in Vietnam, including rape, torture, mutilation, BEFORE the evidence was publicized by the US military servicemen who investigated these allegations; if I claimed people who attended the University of Waterloo are more likely to be guilty of sexual assault and child molestation, but didn't provide any evidence to support this claim, you and your family would be very offended, wouldn't you? Kerry not only offended US military service members and their families in his 1971 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he failed to support those claims with evidence; he didn't say, "I know men who have witnessed those atrocities and are willing to testify in court"; he didn't say, "I have photographs of US military servicemen committing rape, torture, and mutilation" or "I have a film which captures US military servicemen committing rape, torture, and mutilation," and present the visual records to the press; he didn't say, "The Vietnam War Crimes Working Group documented multiple cases in which US military servicemen weren't punished for war crimes they committed, and the Pentagon has suppressed those documents to prevent the American public from knowing of those crimes." Without evidence to support his allegations, Kerry ended up looking like a transsexual Jane Fonda, someone who insults US military service members just for LULZ.

Let me get this straight: Kerry was a bad man because he made allegations which were true, but did not present his sources and reasoning well enough for you? As opposed to Bush, who made allegations about Iraq which were false, and for which he invented fake evidence?

You seem to be a real live apologist for Bush's 2004 victory: I had thought imbeciles like you were all in hiding.

[Sidewinder]

Let me get this straight: Kerry was a bad man because he made allegations which were true, but did not present his sources and reasoning well enough for you?

No, the problem was Kerry MADE HIMSELF look like a bad man for straining HIS CREDIBILITY with allegations that weren't supported until 2006, two years AFTER the election.

The situation is similar to the OJ Simpson trials. One reason the jury acquitted Simpson during his 1995 criminal trial was because his defense was able to present evidence LAPD Detective Mark Fuhrman was a racist (i.e., the Fuhrman Tapes), which seemed to support the defense's allegation that Fuhrman planted evidence at the crime scene. Another was the prosecution's failure to provide evidence Simpson owned Bruno Magli shoes, a pair of which left bloody footprints at the crime scene. The jury did declare Simpson liable for murder during his 1997 civil trial, but the LA County prosecutor obviously can't bring the evidence from the civil trial back in time to save his credibility and win the criminal trial.

[Netko]

I'm saying that I don't think IP can actually provide an example of where someone other than a viable military power has successfully used bribery or rapprochement to, as he said "do what everyone else does when they have a tiff and don't have the credit and expeditionary force to go invade countries on the other side of the world? Rapproachment. The truth is, it is totally impractical to try and prevent a given country from being able to develop chemical weapons forever. You work out a settlement with the clear understanding you will call for inspections and bring back no fly zones and what have you if there is more problems."

Of course he's such an idiot that he references the possible use of force while talking about rapprochement, without even realizing the contradiction. "Everyone else in the world is so civilized they use diplomacy, except when it doesn't work and then they use military force."

Diplomacy can and does involve the threat of force, but there are many levels of military threat other than full-scale invasion and occupation. There is no need for your ridiculous false dilemma between "all carrot and no stick" and "all stick and no carrot".

Totally agree with you, but I'd like to see some successful examples.

How about what the EU is currently doing with Serbia? If you can recall, this spring, after Kosovo declared independence, there was a real chance the Radicals would get into power. A party which has, as an official party plank, the conquest of territories of neighboring countries, and which was getting 40% of the vote and forcing basically everyone else into a grand coalition against them. And the obvious needed international response to that situation (international isolation, possible embargo, and so on) would have strengthened their grip on power and produced at least a decade with a "problem" Serbia. An obviously unmitigated disaster which would have severely negatively impacted the region (just for Croatia, that would mean instead of a country with whom we were having thawing relations, we suddenly have country with declared territorial aspirations for 2/3s of our territory).

Yet today, there is a stable center-left coalition in power which can expend political capital on unpopular moves, which are deeply needed for Serbia's future (the Karadžić arrest was pretty much the first such step - it really was a situation where they could have nabbed him at any time) since they aren't teetering on the edge of losing power all the times - because the Radicals imploded and split into two parties, with a good chunk of their supporters supporting neither do to all the dirty laundry aired in the process. Why did this happen? Well, obviously, a large chunk was internal politics, but there were just enough nudges by the EU (or European ambassadors acting under orders) to make me have a very favorable view.

The biggest is probably the signing of the SAA agreement just two weeks before the election. The Stabilization and Association Agreement is the final step before formal candidacy of a country to join the EU. Usually, as in every time up until now, it has contained country-specific goals that have to be met before it would be signed - usually politically very painful goals that go against the beliefs of the majority of the electorate (even if they are usually in their long-term interest). Guess what? This time it wasn't followed. Why? Because the left in Serbia needed a win to be able to have credibility in the elections. "Belosvetske zavjere" (lit. White-powers conspiracies or conspiracies by major powers) and similar Serbian-victimhood concepts were getting steam (and if anyone can get a good victimhood groove on, its the Serbs), for obvious reasons (Kosovo situation with no concessions to them, primarily). The Radicals were getting some disturbing polling results - it looked like they really would get the majority. The then-PM Koštunica, a little weasel that stymied pro-western attempts for years while somehow managing to stay at the head of a nominally pro-western government, already declared an intent for post-election coalition with the radicals. So the EU decided that the standard rules for the SAA didn't apply and bribed the Serbs. Koštunica further sealed the deal when he declared, in anticipation of his strong future PMship supported by a Radical majority, that he would revoke the Agreement as soon as the new government is in power, because it is a EU bribe.

Now, the majority of Serbs aren't stupid - they know that long term their best hopes for a better quality of life lie in getting into the EU and reforming. Its just that there was no real movement on that front for ages. So the SAA, and even more Koštunica and the Radicals plan to reverse it, got the pro-EU left a victory. A weak, disgusting compromise-inducing (in order to form a government, they had to go into a coalition with the remnants of Milošević's old party) victory, but a victory. Which later solidified when, after the Karadžić arrest and disagreement about how to proceed along with the usual power politics, the Radicals imploded between a moderate and hard-core wings. And a good chunk of the credit goes to an unprincipled EU bribe.

[Dooey Jo]

Even more hilarious is how large portions of the US people bought all of this. The people that might as well have invented the concept of conspiracy theories decided to trust the government, because it had secret documents. That's just awesome

If by "hilarious" and "awesome" you mean absolutely terrifying.

Actually, I think it's a pretty fascinating insight into the minds of many Americans. It goes to show that this whole "never trust the government" idea is just a big ol' lie, and the conspiracy theories are of course there to explain why the government can be trusted: Because even though it seems like they're a bunch of incompetent turds, they actually had a master plan all along, and everyone can feel safe knowing that big brother is watching out for them.

Interestingly, the most widespread conspiracy theory here in Sweden is that supposedly the government puts emetics in all sold alcohol (even the imported, somehow), because they don't want anyone to get too drunk and get hurt. At least they tacitly admit that they want the government to care for them

[K. A. Pital]

Interestingly, the most widespread conspiracy theory here in Sweden is that supposedly the government puts emetics in all sold alcohol (even the imported, somehow), because they don't want anyone to get too drunk and get hurt.

That's... *wipes eyes* that's like one step away from the "fluffy kittens" level of cute. Would be nice if people in the US believed something like that.