Quote:
Originally posted by kstar
Wtf IS "Bowling for Columbine"? I know it's a movie, but it's apparently so crappy that even I've never seen it.
I knew all that information. I took a class on the CIA, and am being heavily recruited to work there.
And what fallacy?
|
That sounds like a pretty solid class - how much of the CIA's past, operations, etc did it deal with? It's an interesting topic, to be sure - the movie "Bowling for Columbine" had a scene that ran through that information, almost verbatim, and I was only referencing it as that: it's pretty common knowledge any more, mostly as a result of classes and media coverage.
The fallacy, to my mind, is saying that because the CIA dealt so heavily with agents, namely Hussein and bin Laden, that came back to haunt US interests, then it must follow that they are the reason for all of our troubles today. Sure, they put these men in a position to become what they are today, but you have to remember that the CIA's function is dynamic, and this dynamism causes rapid fluctuations in their role in protecting American interests.
It is not surprising, then, that what was good for us in 1980 can be bad for us in 2000 - I think this is the point that people are missing, and why I don't understand the argument we're having right now.
More succinctly: Are you arguing against the existence of the CIA? Are you arguing that it has been run poorly, or is ineffectual in its operations? Do you really think that our hindsight take on things carries a whole lot of weight?
The CIA is given an impossible duty - they are essentially required to be prescient with regard to anti-American influences, and root them out before they are a problem. Explain to me a fool-proof method of serving this function without causing problems as well, and I'll gladly sign the petition and march on Washington with you.
------
As an aside, there is certainly some validity in describing the CIA as a 'terrorist organization' when we consider the ultra-loose definitions of 'terrorist' that exist currently. After all, it has long been deemed an 'espianage organization', and the difference is only semantic. But - do you really think that there's any other way for them to exist? Would you really rather be without an organization serving that function? I don't get it.
edited for typos