Ignorance

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Next, three summaries of the content of this thread so far:

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

And finally, the stock market's reaction to this thread:

-Eric

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

Wohooo !
Thats great!
Especially that child or saint or whatsever it is dropped in the snow in the foreground.
Lost of space for fantasizing.

Ignorance in what color howsoever is an important topic for artists as well, and I am sure
many of us here have the capability of giving appropriate photographic answers on the topic.

Thanks for posting!

[Rob C]

There you go, bringing in art. Now we'll all get a complex and not publish anything!

Rob C

[Steve Weldon]

"As far as I know they haven't given permission because no country has ever provided an overwhelming case for war against another one?"

No..  What about the first Gulf War?  The UN doesn't "make legal" wars, but the Security Council does vote to sanction them.  And they did in the first Gulf War.  Now..  Saddam, known for using WMD's on his own countrymen and Iran.. documented and verified by any country that count.. invades Kuwait, steals their loot, kills their people, and refuses to leave.  As a result US led forces remove him from Kuwait.  As a condition (and agreement with the League of Arab Nations) a condition of surrender is signed my Iraq, to stop forces from going into Baghdad and changing the regime.  These conditions of surrender were very specific.  

Iraq broke 23 UN resolutions including not allow UN weapons inspectors to completely verify their programs.  As part of that "legal" war (your terminology) the conditions of surrender were still enforceable.  They were enforced.   That WMD's were discovered or not isn't really an issue imo.. they'd had them before, used them on another country and their own people, and wouldn't allow the weapons inspectors to do their job.  It would have been irresponsible to let the violation of their terms of surrender to go unenforced.   The UN security council, with help of voting countries which were shown to be in violation of UN sanctions against Iraq by selling them major weapons (France and Germany to be precise, the most vocal opposition), did not sanction enforcing the violations of Iraq's surrender.  The UN lost world credibility in the eyes of every dictator and tyrant in the world, but were shown some countries (mainly the US and UK, and more than 20 others) were willing to enforce them anyway.  We should be thankful.

And please, try to leave out the loon talking points.  It doesn't help.

"Lowering your self to to making personal attacks doesn't help your questions?"

This wasn't a personal attack.  You've been quoting the talking points of the far left loons from your very first post.   And you haven't demonstrated the knowledge to defend them.  


"Having a nuclear weapon makes them a bully. They depend on it to get their own way. Without it the Arab countries would combine and Palestine would revert to what it was a hundred years ago. United, peaceful and free."

Thank you for demonstrating why nuclear deterrents work.  The salient point here, is that it's not a hundred years ago.  The Arab countries have started wars and attacked countries and lost.  As a result, they've lost land.   It seems they'd learn that losing land has been a global historical result of losing wars.. especially ones they start.  But being a bully?  Really?  You're entire reasoning shows a lack of understanding of the issues..


"That is an opinion that you seem to think valid. Comparisons are made all the time about the past. When things change for the better then it is valid to look back and comment?"

Comparisons yes.  We were talking about "judgments."  Look up the word and understand what that means.  It doesn't mean comparisons.

"Please change your writing level, preferably for the better and try to leave out the personal stuff. It doesn't help your point of view."

I politely asked you a question to help the discussion.  It's not personal.  That you'd take it as such is unfortunate, but it seems I'm not the only one having issues with your basic level of reading comprehension.


"In your opinion. Are you sure that you are correct in everything you state? If you were then nobody would even think of contradicting you. Everyone on here is entitled to their opinion without you denigrating them."

It's sad that you think a differing opinion is denigrating.  Am I sure?  Yes, from what I've read on te subject I am accurate.  You're welcome to show me where I'm wrong.


So far Stamper, mostly what you've done is throw out the talking points of an extreme group and failed to defend it.  Then, when you're shown where you were inaccurate you take it personally.  You haven't answered a single question asked or supported any of the points you've made.  Because of this its not worth having a discussion on your level.  Thank you though.

[Steve Weldon]

"Quote from: stamper on September 13, 2010, 10:28:17 AM
1.  Russia was a threat to world peace and yes the nuclear deterrent probably kept them from invading most of Europe and then some and taking advantage of post war weakness and unsurping America's Marshall plan for Germany and rebuilding of Japan.  But I don't think a demonstration on live humans was necessary to show the power of the bomb.  Sharing scientific data and allowed observation would have done the trick.

This is simply false. (At best, it's an a$$umption.) You apparently failed to read Misirlou's statement above."

This was my quote and your response didn't show it to be false.. more or less it reinforced what I said.



"It kinda goes like this: when you're IN war, human lives are going to be lost. That's a given. Well, it seems to me the most effective strategy for victory in war would be to take as many of the other country's "human lives" as possible, while losing as few of our own lives as possible"

This is a very crude and limited strategy.. one well past its prime.   We're much smarter and better educated concerning 'strategy' these days.   I'm not saying your wrong about wanting to lose less life on your side.. but its far from being the only variable or factor in a strategy of war.



. The Atomic Bomb basically provided the US with the means to do this, while a "conventional invasion" meant the loss of FAR MORE human lives, including massive amounts of our own, not just the enemy's.

The simple fact is this: decimating Japan with the bomb accomplished 3 key elements: (1) it minimized casualties to our own American lives; (2) it brought our enemy to its knees as quickly as possible; and (3) it made our other enemies fear us enough NOT to want to get into war with us. There is no way that "sharing scientific data" is going to have the same impact. Literally. It's like a guy "saying" he's tough versus his beating the living daylights out of you so brutally and decisively that you never want to cross him again. The psycholgical difference in "truly understanding" the consequences is astronomical.




"That is just a reality of life, pal.

Waging war should be deadly-serious business and ONLY deadly-serious business. Again, the use of "half-hearted measures" in any life-or-death situation is not only unacceptable, it has a real chance to become suicide.

Jack"

Well.. it is deadly.   This is why we mustn't be 'half hearted' in our strategy or thought or our capacity to value human life.   

[Steve Weldon]

"The key was not just to proof Russia that the USA had the bomb, it was to show Russia that the leaders of the USA had the guts to use is if "required". This is by the way by far the most logical explanation when taking historical facts into account."


I agree.  But I think if we could otherwise have convinced Japan to surrender then we could have made a real attempt to convince Russia of both our ability and resolve to use nuclear weapons.  Success would probably have hinged on the ability of our current President to convince.   I don't know if we would have been successful.. but I think we would have tried if Japan wasn't part of the equation.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

There you go, bringing in art. Now we'll all get a complex and not publish anything!

Rob C

Excuses, all foul excuses!
Don't be ignorant!
 

"In arts god set foot on earth"
My art teacher from school

Theres a reason why in buddhism ignorance is one of the three big "poisons": Greed, hatred and ignorance.


Concerning "ignorance and art":

I believe Nazism has been the epitome of ignorance and destructivity here in Germany.
So here is my contribution to the photographic interpretation of the term:

"Trace of Death"

About this image from my blog:
"An interesting place is Prora. Prora was an attempt of the Nazi organization “Kraft durch Freude” to create a mass recreation area. They built this huge complex behind the dunes of the long beach for thousands of tourists. It was in a time where Germany was quite isolated for obvious reasons and they needed something like this, because visiting neighbour countries wasn’t common or really working in that time. With this background knowledge I found the place creepy. Today it is used by some shops and organisations and you can get a nice “Bratwurst” there, but the majority of the complex is spooky and empty. Its a memorial of decayed nazi megalomania. Therefore I called the image “Trace of Death” – because death was, what the Nazis really brought to Germany and the world."

Link to the full blog entry (not specific about ignorance, but the trip where the image was taken):
http://www.feldhaim.com/post/336/3



And to add one (and hopefully my final) remark to the ongoing discussion:
There are no winners in war.
War is always a testimony that something went badly wrong beforehand and not
necessarily only from the side of the ones declared guilty in the end.
(Not meant as a relativation of Germany causing WW2)

[JohnKoerner]

This was my quote and your response didn't show it to be false.. more or less it reinforced what I said.

I somehow got you confounded with Stamper, but regardless that point reinforced my own, and that is the use of nuclear force accelerated the end of the war and saved U.S. lives. End of point. And I actually think we were making the same point.

This is a very crude and limited strategy.. one well past its prime.   We're much smarter and better educated concerning 'strategy' these days.   I'm not saying your wrong about wanting to lose less life on your side.. but its far from being the only variable or factor in a strategy of war.

Killing thousands of people and destroying millions of dollars in property is itself crude. If we're so much "smarter" on our strategy these days, how come we continue to do so poorly in our conflicts? The smartest combat strategy is to go in there 100% committed to incapacitating your opponent as quickly and decisively as possible. The technical realities of "how" come second; what's most important is the 100% commitment to do whatever it takes to win and win decisively.

Of course you're not going to say I am wrong about wanting to minimize loss-of-life on our side; this should be of primary importance to any leader of his men.

Well.. it is deadly.   This is why we mustn't be 'half hearted' in our strategy or thought or our capacity to value human life.  

I am not sure we disagree. My point is that half-hearted measures = half-hearted strategy. Using every measure available = full-fledged strategy.

If I were in a leadership capacity in war, the human lives I would value would be on my side of the fence. I do agree that taking innocent lives on the other side should be avoided only insofar as they are unnecessary to achieve victory. Senseless killing = senseless killing. But any innocent lives that get killed because they happened to be nearby a target which would effectively disable the lifeblood of the enemy would not be my concern. That is something the leadership of the other side needs to worry about.

I don't really want to get caught-up in an endless digression about war, but my belief is IF there is enough cause to go to war, then the commitment to win that war needs to be 100%. No apologies, nothing held back. You're in a kill-or-be-killed environment, which is no place for apologists. And if the leadership body of any nation doesn't have that kind of 100% resolve to get in there, and end it decisively, then they have no business initiating any war to begin with, because they're going in there with the half-heart of a loser.

Jack




.

[Misirlou]

I believe Nazism has been the epitome of ignorance and destructivity here in Germany.

Cristoph,

Not sure I agree. Clearly, the nazi movement was (and still could be) destructive. Other words I might use:

inhumane
tyrannical
authoritarian
and, (this one may be controversial) evil

I don't think of nazis as particularly ignorant though. They believe a great many things I am violently opposed to, but I've never encountered one whom I thought could be convinced to abandon their belief system if presented with new facts and evidence. It's not a philosophy that relies to any great extent on rational assessment of information, at least in my experience.

Regards,
WDB

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

If you try analyzing this, many different conclusions can be drawn.
Maybe we could see it like this:
Ignorance is evil.
And for maintaining being evil one must be ignorant to at least some extent.

[....]I don't think of nazis as particularly ignorant though. [......] but I've never encountered one whom I thought could be convinced to abandon their belief system if presented with new facts and evidence. [....]

Isn't that a proof that Nazism is ignorant to a really high extent?

I remember my father telling me, when he was young and the Nazis came to power in Germany, the first people to follow them and run through the village with the arm raised in the fascist greeting manner were the village idiots, the most unable of the locals.  

[Rob C]

I remember my father telling me, when he was young and the Nazis came to power in Germany, the first people to follow them and run through the village with the arm raised in the fascist greeting manner were the village idiots, the most unable of the locals.  

Yet, I'd suspect, well able to recognize the zeitgeist.

Rob C

[stamper]

Quote

So far Stamper, mostly what you've done is throw out the talking points of an extreme group and failed to defend it.  Then, when you're shown where you were inaccurate you take it personally.  You haven't answered a single question asked or supported any of the points you've made.  Because of this its not worth having a discussion on your level.  Thank you though.

Unquote

You obviously haven't read all of my posts. I have provided links and suggested books that imo should be read. If you choose not to agree with them that is your choice but stating that I haven't provided any proves that you reading skills aren't up to scratch.

Quote

That WMD's were discovered or not isn't really an issue imo.

Unquote

That is the defining issue and one that you choose to ignore because it blows your whole argument out of the water. Saddam didn't have them and both the US and the UK knew that. They told lies about that issue and convinced gullible people like yourself that the war was legal. Note how many people are now saying that they were duped unlike yourself who still has the blinkered view that they were correct. Admitting you were wrong isn't a big deal?  Again your choice of language doesn't help make your points any more worthwhile than they are. I note from other posts made by you it is the norm so I guess it it part of your nature to use it to ram home your point of view.  

[JohnKoerner]

That is the defining issue and one that you choose to ignore because it blows your whole argument out of the water. Saddam didn't have them and both the US and the UK knew that. They told lies about that issue and convinced gullible people like yourself that the war was legal. Note how many people are now saying that they were duped unlike yourself who still has the blinkered view that they were correct. Admitting you were wrong isn't a big deal?  Again your choice of language doesn't help make your points any more worthwhile than they are. I note from other posts made by you it is the norm so I guess it it part of your nature to use it to ram home your point of view.  

Stamper, I will agree that you provided references for your views; I also agree others simply didn't like your references.

I will further agree that your original statement, "BTW not all Jews are Zionists. Most of them want to live in peace," was twisted into the much more disparaging, "some of them want to live peacefully." So I do believe you are being unfairly criticized in some respects.

Now, I personally don't wish to discuss either race or religion, but I do wish to discuss some basic principles that I feel you keep missing and/or ignoring. Did you not have any logical rebuttal for my previous post to you, which you ignored, regarding fighting at 100% capacity in war?

Also, what do you feel is a "justifiable" war? Further, if there exists a condition in your mind where a war is in fact justified, then when such conditions manifest themselves, do you believe that the best strategy for victory is to fight only at the level or your opponent, or do you believe a nation (if capable) should immediately initiate a level of attack so great as to get the conflict over with as soon as possible? Which ideology do you think, ultimately, would result in the least amount of human casualties, prolonging a war or getting it over with quickly and decisively?

Finally, out of curiosity, what do you feel is the best way to handle the Gulf situation without the use of arms or conflict?

Jack




.

[Misirlou]

Saddam didn't have them and both the US and the UK knew that.

That statement is entirely unsupportable. Just about everybody thought Hussein had WMDs. That was the official assessment of every major intelligence organization in the US, the UK, France, Russia; every government in NATO; the US and UK press; nearly all US legislators who made public statements concerning the matter. I was working in the US intelligence community at the time. Although I had nothing to do with middle east accounts, I did read the assessments coming from those folks, and there was unnanimity that Iraq had at least some chemical and biological weapons. This idea that the administration made up facts to support their argument, or manipulated the intelligence in some way, is a complete fantasy.

[Misirlou]

Ignorance is evil.

Really? Children and the uneducated are evil? I wouldn't say that at all.

[Rob C]

Worse, how does one define ignorance? A great education certainly does not, of itself, bestow wisdom. Much homespun wisdom comes from some without a great education - much of it seems to be something indefinable - like street smarts, I suppose - part of the person's natural wiring.

Rob C

[stamper]

Regarding fighting at 100% this doesn't sit easy with me. I am not a pacifist but the Vietnam, Gulf Wars, Falklands crisis and the wars in Palestine were unnecessary imo. The first three were imperialist in origin as most wars are. Probably the second world war was the last one worth fighting. IMO the USA go looking for wars to fight so your idea of 100% isn't valid because it isn't in defence of the homeland which to me is the only ones that are worth fighting. The USA hasn't had to defend it's self - apart from 9/11 which wasn't a war - so the brutality of your thinking doesn't sit easy. I would have left Saddam alone, not because I was a fan of his but the aftermath of what happened wasn't worth it. In the first one the USA were itching for a fight because imo at times it helps their economy. The second world war was economically a boom time for them but a tragedy for American lives. The second Gulf War was for oil and left over 100,000 dead and the country doesn't have democracy which we are led to believe. With regards to Vietnam then the question I would pose is: What did the Vietnamese people deserve that merited America invading and nearly destroying it? Hopefully the answer isn't because it was going communist? I don't believe America or any other country should decide what philosophy another country adopts. As to Iran then I simply think that they are chugging the West's chain to upset them. An invasion of them, which America can't afford unless they use it as an excuse to kick start the economy, would likely start World war three as China and Russia has an interest there. Finally your 100% thinking is possibly a reflection of your mentality. That isn't meant to be offensive but possibly reflects your mindset rather than a good idea of how to approach things. BTW thank you for the back up. I was starting to get paranoid in thinking that I was all alone in defending a position that I sincerely believed but everyone was ganging up on me. It seemed like they were lining up one after the other to throw punches at me!

[stamper]

That statement is entirely unsupportable. Just about everybody thought Hussein had WMDs. That was the official assessment of every major intelligence organization in the US, the UK, France, Russia; every government in NATO; the US and UK press; nearly all US legislators who made public statements concerning the matter. I was working in the US intelligence community at the time. Although I had nothing to do with middle east accounts, I did read the assessments coming from those folks, and there was unnanimity that Iraq had at least some chemical and biological weapons. This idea that the administration made up facts to support their argument, or manipulated the intelligence in some way, is a complete fantasy.

Your last four words sum up the fact that there wasn't even a damp firework in the country. How could they have got it so wrong? George Tennant paid the penalty with his job. He became the fall guy for Bush. In Britain Tony Blair didn't dare blame John Scarlett because he would have then told the world it was Blair's lies. How can you possibly defend the intelligence  operations considering there weren't anything to be found? If someone says that there is evidence of something and it turns out there isn't a shred then they are incompetent or lying. There isn't anything in between. The simple answer is that once they invaded Iraq then they expected to find evidence that would have backed up their thinking and the world would have agreed with them. I find it astonishing that there are still some like yourself that are still clinging to the idea that there was evidence of WMD'S. Events has totally proved you wrong.

[RSL]

I don't want to argue with Stamper's assertions -- you can't chase hobgoblins of the mind with facts -- but I want to add to Jack's post. Never thought I'd agree with jack after the "Crime of the Century" thread that sounded as if 9/11 had never happened, but in this thread I seem to agree with Jack right down the line.

In 1957 I was a fairly new first lieutenant attending the USAF's Squadron Officers' School in Alabama. For one assignment I wrote an essay that caught the eye of retired general Orvil Anderson, who was the editor of the independent Air Force Historian magazine. Anderson had been deputy commander for operations for the Eighth Air Force from 1944 through 1945. In 1944 he persuaded Jimmy Doolittle that instead of passively protecting the bombers, our fighters should pursue German fighters and destroy them. The result was air supremacy for the Allies. In 1946 he became the founding commandant of the Air War College. When it became apparent that the Russians were developing nuclear weapons, he recommended that since we knew the locations of their research facilities, overtly or covertly we should destroy them and gain at least a twenty year respite from the threat. That recommendation found its way into the press and General Anderson was forced to retire.

Anderson decided to publish my essay on air power and invited me, a peon first lieutenant to come to his office and chat for a while. It was a pleasant listen, because when you chatted with Anderson what you actually did was listen. The thing I took away from that conversation was this: "I see a belief growing among military leaders that we can win future wars with technology, but in the long run wars are never won by technology. Wars are won by the mind of man."

How many times have we demonstrated the truth of that since then? We certainly demonstrated it in Vietnam where we had overwhelming technological superiority but didn't have the cojones to use it when it was appropriate. During "Rolling Thunder," the bombing campaign, for instance, we could see SAM sites being built in the north, but we weren't allowed to attack them until they became operational. On the ground, operational progress was measured by body counts, which had absolutely nothing to do with operational success. Determinations about the political acceptability of bombing targets were being made by the White House. It was as if we were afraid to win. Eventually the north forced our hand with the Tet offensive and we won, militarily, but almost immediately, out of political timidity our "leaders" snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

I could go on and on with examples from the Korean war, the Vietnam war and the bombing campaign in Cambodia, with all of which I had first-hand experience. But the bottom line is this: Jack's right... What Lyndon Johnson and his loony friend McNamara called "graduated response" is a recipe for disaster in any war. The only way to keep casualties on both sides to a minimum and get it over with is to go all-out as quickly as possible and eliminate the enemy's ability or willingness to continue the fight.