Bush didn’t care. Dude was an asshole. He tried to drum up support with our allies, and when most of them said no, he just did it anyway.

That said, it was a mistake to warmonger, don’t get me wrong.

I don’t think the invasion of Iraq can be blamed on the NYT. I think the Bush administration and Al Qaeda get the credit for that one.

However much is necessary to arrive at the truth.

Nobody and no system should be expected to be perfect all the time, I would anticipate some mistakes over a course of decades.

Have you checked for any times they were critical of US foreign policy within the same timeframe?

“Consistently” and “in-these-specific-cases” are different things.

In other words no, just the words of the governmental body. My goalpost there has been pretty consistent. I’m not tossing any accusations whatsoever, despite apparently offending you. Just pointing out that national security concerns can be alleviated, there is a viable, diplomatic path forward for that. Since I am not an expert on the subject matter, I simply do not know if that has been attempted in earnest or not. I’m just being cautious before simply giving completely blanket trust to a country, I’m withholding my judgement and not yet forming an opinion.

No, not anything. Studies on, oh, let’s say emperor penguins would be difficult to militarize. Or, atmospheric studies using ice cores. But many things, yes. Hand-waving them away and tossing casual insults about it is silly regardless.

The article cited signals intelligence. I’m not with the NSA or anything, so I’m pretty much just going off the article.

Do we have invitees accounts of that, or just the word of a governmental body?

National security is a legitimate concern, hand-waving it away as just “bs” is not a very practical attitude.

I don’t know if they are or are not inviting foreigners. However, I do know that inviting them and allowing them full access to the station would put national security concerns to rest.

I was talking about American antarctic stations, not all American research sites. Though I’m now curious what the reasoning was for the ISS kick.

Where does this association that all things bad and colonialism must always be one-in-the-same? If it’s not colonialism, it must not be bad. If it’s not bad, it must not be colonialism.

Regardless, the solution to the problem is fairly simple. The American stations, at least, are somewhat multinational, people from all over can go there. Perhaps they could invite foreigners to do work as well?

Feb 29th. I’m 7 now.

j/k

They don’t need evidence when they have their “gut instincts”.

Having an absolute like “never” makes it a weak principle that will inevitably be false sometimes.

Foolishness in the digital world has less disuasive power than irl. Flips the script a little bit, which is why people are willing to invest in it as a tool of actual power. Qanon demonstrated this. Now kids are getting measles.

Can we not find a source for the news that isn’t owned by an East Asian religious cult since 2018?

If someone can’t see how our world can get this messed up without some shadowy cabal of global controllers, they’re a simpleton.

The world is not a tv show plotline.

Like most propaganda, it has both truth and gross exaggeration in it.

The true part is the asylum process does get abused, which results in extremely long wait-times for asylum requests, and an overall stressing of the system.

The false parts are the normal Fox News propaganda lines. Way more of them than there actually are, it’s an “invasion”, they want to replace you, etc etc etc. Be afraid, be afraid, be afraid. Oh, and give our guys money.

There’s a shitload of selection bias at play there. When we do prepare for something and actually successfully prevent it, your brain won’t remember it for you, unless you try really hard.

So, it’s almost impossible to just figure out how well we prepare, using some kind of sniff test. Our human brains just royally suck at that specific kind of analysis.

By way of example, Biden’s recent investment into port security. If a problem never occurs now, are you going to give him a point for that, or just never really consider it again?

This is partly why the scientific method needs to be so strict, slow and rigorous to get anywhere.

Trump is against arming Ukraine. Biden is for arming Ukraine.

Militaristic? Check. Hyper-patriotism? Check. Heavy focus on discrimination against out-groups? Check. Totalitarian power structure? Check. Subjugating citizens for the greater good of the state? Check.

By golly, I think he’s right.

Very little in its current form, I think mainly just IP address.