View Single Post
(#32 (permalink))
Old
Ronin4hire's Avatar
Ronin4hire (Offline)
Busier Than Shinjuku Station
 
Posts: 2,353
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: ウェリントン、ニュジランド
07-31-2010, 11:19 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by steven View Post
Don't get me wrong... I mean while I believe that my first impression of the thing could very well be possible, I'm not like stuck on that idea and looking for crap that only supports that idea.

I guess vague was a bad term to use the way I did. In fact it is very clear and very precise... but it just doesn't seem to back it up with any evidence (that is available). I'm not an expert in anything really... but I feel like if this were about something else and presented in court as "evidence" it wouldn't fly by their standards, if you get what I mean by that. It's a report in that is says what happened, but it doesn't really show any data. It's like a lab writeup that only has the hypothesis, results (as in written without data), and conclusion... but without any of the method or things that show how they got to the conclusion.

I suppose I'm just being a little abstract though. I read in the other thread that you're a political science major so I guess you come across things like this and read them frequently? Are they all like this? Do these kinds of official documents usually go unquestioned? (by people who actually have a say in things, that is)
Hmmm... To me, the key piece of evidence are the torpedo remains so Im thinking that if it was brought to a courtroom, that would be what the NK defense would scrutinize I guess. Now the report says that it was the same type of torpedo used by the NK navy and Im not in a position to disagree with that, nor do I have any reason to believe that the Australians, Swedes and the Americans are lying.

As for whether these sorts of things usually read like this... Um... That is a difficult question. Although my major is International Relations, the only other time I ever looked at a report similar to this was when I was studying the reasons why the US invaded Iraq and the sort of "Intelligence reports" that supposedly justified the invasion (most case studies Ive been involved in looked at conflict in a more broader sense, trying to use different theoretical models to best explain or predict what happened or may happen). So using that as a comparison... I guess whether these sorts of reports read the same depends on whether you think the Australians, Swedes, South Koreans and the Americans are wrong or lying about the torpedo.
Reply With Quote