Ignorance

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... one of the main advantages of applying Game Theory to war was stated thus: "If both sides correctly ascertain the situation, then the losing side may decide not to participate."...

Damn, if only someone told Vietnamese about the game theory at the time

[JohnKoerner]

Not everyone shares the same sense of humour.

Well, not everyone shares the same opinion on just about everything. Since the joke didn't concern you, don't worry about it.




____________________
____________________

Accepted as such... no problem.

Good deal.




.

[JohnKoerner]

Damn, if only someone told Vietnamese about the game theory at the time

Ah, but this would re-start the thread back to the beginning

It also brings up the flaws in game theory: (1) actual knowledge of all the facts on the other side, and (2) the resolve to win being greater on one side than the other, which also reinforces my points.

Jack


.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I feel validated... In the end, I don't think your familiarity with game theory changes the fact you completely misunderstood my point, nor do I think my lack of prior exposure to Game Theory minimizes my own. It merely reinforces it.

Whether I misunderstood, misunderestimated (to quote President Bush), twisted, etc., your points, or simply took your theory to its logical end, I will let others to decide. The "logical end" being the Beach Boys song, in the musical interpretation of the John McCain group: "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran "(or Vietnam, or...). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg Though Senator McCain did not mention nuclear bomb, which you appear to favor in your 100% theories.

As for being validated and reinforced... there is an app for that too Actually, there is a name for that in the decision-making theory: confirmation bias.  We usually cherry-pick arguments in whatever information comes our way to suit (reinforce, validate) our already formed opinion.

Come to think of it, maybe Cheney never really wanted to skew intelligence reports, maybe he was just another helpless victim of the confirmation bias?

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Dagnabbit, I still feel that the only post in this entire thread that contained perfect, unmitigated Truth was my own photographic post of the Truth Wagon.     

Eric

[jeremypayne]

Come to think of it, maybe Cheney never really wanted to skew intelligence reports, maybe he was just another helpless victim of the confirmation bias?

There's something to that.  By 2002, I don't think they were looking to answer the question: "does Iraq have wmds?" They believed the answer was: "yes" ... so confirmation bias probably did lead them to ignore evidence to the contrary ... Not sayin' that's how policy should be made, but I do see how it could happen.

[JohnKoerner]

Whether I misunderstood, misunderestimated (to quote President Bush), twisted, etc., your points, or simply took your theory to its logical end, I will let others to decide. The "logical end" being the Beach Boys song, in the musical interpretation of the John McCain group: "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran "(or Vietnam, or...). Though Senator McCain did not mention nuclear bomb, which you appear to favor in your 100% theories.

You didn't take my post to its logical end, you took the "kill ability" to its extreme potential, but this has nothing to do with my own argument.

The logical end of my post was to (1) first decide if war is justified and in the best long-term interest of the country, and then (2) if not, don't wage war; if so, then attack with 100% full capacity until the enemy submits or is obliterated. It's either one or the other.

"The enemy," however, is not necessarily every man, woman, and child in that country ... thus your a$$umption in this regard was your mistake.

In point of fact, "the enemy" encompasses those persons in power making the decisions/policies/actions that prompted your decision to go to war, and their active armies, which constitute a much more finite sub-set of persons living in said country.

As for being validated and reinforced... there is an app for that too Actually, there is a name for that in the decision-making theory: confirmation bias.  We usually cherry-pick arguments in whatever information comes our way to suit (reinforce, validate) our already formed opinion.

My position is not reinforced by "bias," but by fact.

It is a FACT that the 100% resolve of any person or persons is worth more than any techinical advantage. This is why early America (though hopelessly-outnumbered and out-weaponed) defeated the English and sent them back home, defeated. It is why Vietnam whipped us.

You may recognize 100% resolve in the following timeless statements:

"He who resolves to conquer or die is seldom conquered."
~ Alexander the Great

"Give me liberty or give me death."
~ Patrick Henry

These types of extremist, no apology, 100% commitments to win-or-die are THE mentality that is required to prevail in war, and which will almost always render "technical superiority" a moot point.

Technical superiority may offer initial advantage in combat, but only a 100% commitment to win-or-die is what sustains people to prevail in the trenches and to persevere no matter what ... as things carry on-and-on-and-on ...

Have a good night,

Jack



.

[BernardLanguillier]

Of course I'm arguing from one side, because I was involved. I'm not going to take up Sadam Hussein's point of view, or entertain discussions where anyone else tries to tell me what I said, thought, or did. I don't mind hearing what others might think, but I will again state that, from my point of view, having been there, the assertion that you were lied to is not correct.

Essentially, according to that article, some countres felt the evidence was not strong enough to justify a war. It does not say that other countries felt that there was no evidence of WMDs, or more precisely evidence that there were no WMDs. You need something of that nature if you're going to make the claim that the US administration lied.

If the evidence had been completely solid one way or the other, things would have been different, and we wouldn't be having this conversation. But it wasn't, so we can.

It is logically impossible to prove that something does not exist. The very suggestion that the proof of the non existence of WMD was required is manipulative. The only thing required was the proof of their existence. Your presentation of fact is again built on the thought that war was unavoidale. Assuming that you are a honnest person, I am scared by the effectiveness of the manipulation you have undergone to make you adopt such malicious thinking as being normal.

All human decisions are always based on reasonnable evidence.  The obvious lie is in the presentation of very doubtful possibilities as facts. There will never be more doubt than there was at that time, and yet the existence of WMD was expained to the World as being beyond possile doubt. This was not a mistake, it was a purposeful lie. The extend of the incompetence that would have been required to make such a mistake is beyond possible reason. Did you as a person lie? Probably not. Were you given the information that could have led you to question your orders? Yes, without any possible doubt because the questioning about the relevance of WMD was all around you. Did you therefore participate to the lie? I believe that by not using you right to think freely and oppose the course of things you did participate to the collective lie.

A line of conduct had been defined and various individuals at various levels in the organization decided that it was not in their personnal interest to fight back the overall trend towards war. Call it weakness or blind patriotism, but you owe yourself and your colleagues more respect that you are currently showing. I don't buy the excuse of your incompetence. Each of you, part of the organization, bears some responsibility in each civilian death in Irak.

I have been there, not at the level of a governement, but at the level of a company. I have seen from the inside how a group of people manages to avoid resposibility, to spread it and diluet it. How key thinkers aiode by the will of somebody they do not agree with but who has the power to hurt them. Yesmanship.

Humanity would benefit tremendously by looking in the details of the mechasnim that led to the largest collective maniuplation since the German led WWII. Many people decided to leave ethics aside and spread misinformation, mostly to fight for the American flag or out of weakness. The scariest thing is how little introspection was done about these mistakes of tremendous proportions.

The reason is pretty obvious though. The moment you admit that lie, the most important thing of all "the self belief in the goodness of America" collapses. Once that is gone, you would have to move to next obvious question. What really happened on September 11th. Is the crazy official story about a conspiration led by a few arab extremists credible at all? Most people would have laughed outloud had Hollywood come up with such a story in one of their B series movies.

You are therefore stuck in a sting of denials aimed at protecting your own belief system. It is your prerpogative to try to look for facts though. none of us like to belong to the wrong camp, but wouldn't it be American above all to try to get it right? That would be the America the world has been loving for all these years. The one that has partially vanished through manipulations and lies. To be fair, other gove are not much better, I don't see this as a the world vs US kind of story. Not at all. I do have many american friends, some who agree with me some who don't. But the truth of the matter is that dream the world had to see Obama set the story straight is vanishing under the realization that even him cannot do it. Who rules then?

Cheers,
Bernard

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... attack with 100% full capacity until the enemy submits or is obliterated. It's either one or the other.

"The enemy," however, is not necessarily every man, woman, and child in that country ...  "the enemy" encompasses those persons in power... and their active armies, which constitute a much more finite sub-set of persons living in said country...

I get it. And I already got it in my post #134, where I said you are right under the assumption that it is a dual-player, single-stage game.

But isn't it exactly what happened in Iraq: you did obliterate their army in a very short time, using "shock & awe", as close to your beloved 100% theory as it gets. So, who are you fighting there today? Not the army, but "insurgents" as you call them, or "freedom fighters" as they see it. That is already a multi-stage game (the first stage being fighting the army, the second stage being fighting the insurgency). And if you want to win that stage, you would have to further obliterate an additional male population... and say you succeed... in a few years, the children of fathers you killed will grow up and pick up where their fathers left... that is the third (and fourth, and fifth...) stage, something we already see in the Middle East, Northern Ireland... etc.)

Isn't that what happened to Soviets in Afghanistan: a relatively quick military victory (stage one), only to be bogged for years in a querilla-stile fighting (stage two). And now it is your turn.

Isn't that what happened to Austro-Hungarian empire in WWI against Serbia? They drove the complete Serbian army out of the country (to Greece) relatively quickly, killing in the process 40% of the male population at the time (stage one)... only to see the remaining Serbian army (and the Allies)  drive them out a few years later (stage two).

Isn't that what happened to Germans in Yugoslavia in WWII? The then-Yugoslav army was swiftly defeated in only 12 days (stage one)... only to see a guerilla (partisan) stile uprising several months later, which over the four years of war grew into a new Yugoslav army, comprising women and teenagers as well, who almost single-handedly drove Germans out of the country (stage two). And before you complain, yes, it did help tremendously that the Allies weakened Germans on other fronts, but it does not change the fact that Germans had to face a stage two fight with Yugoslavs.

And I can go on and on and on with examples. So how do you apply your 100% theory in stage two? Without further obliterating population, that is. And that is exactly what you did in WWII in Germany and Japan: further obliterating civilian population, not just "persons in power and their active armies". And if they did not surrender, you would continue obliterating until they do. And some nations are more stubborn and resilient than others. And some terrain is more suitable for guerilla fighting. So do not tell me that your 100% theory does not lead to the logical end: a complete annihilation. Can you please explain what your 100% commitment would mean today in Afghanistan and Iraq, where you already won stage one? Who do you suggest to obliterate now, which subset of the population? And how? Nuke them?

And on that note... sweet dreams.

[jeremypayne]

Bernard,

If these monsters you believe are in charge here in the US are in fact capable and responsible for treasonous lies and mass murder, why didn't they just plant WMDs in Iraq or lie about finding them after they controlled the territory with their military?  Doesn't make sense that the grandest conspiracy of all time couldn't close the loop with a few planted chemical bombs, some anthrax and some nuclear material ... Does it?

[BernardLanguillier]

If these monsters you believe are in charge here in the US are in fact capable and responsible for treasonous lies and mass murder, why didn't they just plant WMDs in Iraq or lie about finding them after they controlled the territory with their military?  Doesn't make sense that the grandest conspiracy of all time couldn't close the loop with a few planted chemical bombs, some anthrax and some nuclear material ... Does it?

I didn't say "are in charge", I said "were in charge". I feel that you are reacting to my post as if it were anti-American while it is not.

The wording "mass muderer" is not mine. This being said, it seems reasonnable to assume that it would have taken x00+ years of Saddam's administration to kill the amount of civilians who died in 5 years because of the war. I guess that those Iraky living in the US who lobbied for the war had their relatives safely out of the country. But yeah, those who survived must be happy that somebody else decided for them that "freedom" was worth x00.000 casualities. Heck, China might decide some day that the US citizens need to be freed from their president as well. We won't be in a position to complain at the UN.

Back to your relevant question. I'll answer with another one. Why take the risk to plant WMDs? They obviously didn't need to since they managed to invade Irak without them. We are dealing with a bunch of confident guys who had been working on this story probably for years.

They knew full well that things would be questioned after the fact, and they also knew full well that those accusing them of having made up the whole story would encounter the kind of reaction you are showing. My claims cannot be real because they would mean that the propisiton "America is a force of good" might no be true. The falacy here is obviously in the association between the Bush regime and America. By definition an ellected gov should represent the country, so questioning their actions is questioning the country. This is obviously not the case, but the illusion is strong and persists today.

So why bother? Has there been an attempt from the Obama administration to look back at that mess and clear it up? Nope.

Besides, think for a second about the complexity of the logistics of what you are suggesting. Faking WMDs isn't super easy to do well and they would have undergone the scrutinty of the international community. Besides, the moment you try to do that, you have to involve Many people from different backgrounds. Unless you kill them all leaks are bound to happen.

The beauty of their approach is that they didn't have to involve a great deal of people in this "conspiracy" (your word, not mine), and those involved would be coming from the most secretive community (CIA,...). They would be people used not to talk about various embarassing stories.

If you were in the US at that time, you must have noticed the overall atmosphere maintained by the media about being with us or against us, the way countries questioning the relevance of the Bush regime's position were treated,... The whole thing had been arranged so that it would be just impossible for people in the general public, but also in the communities involved, to step back and look at facts. A strong sense of urgency, an urge to decisive (taking the wrong decision was adverized heavily as being a better option than not to take any) was also conveid by the media again and again. The war had become the obvious option and those against it had been put in a position where they had to proof that the war was not needed. Amazing manipulation.

Cheers,
Bernard

[stamper]

Quote Misirlou

If oil were really so central to all this, then why didn't we just take it? Obviously, we didn't. The US only has, I think, two driling contracts with the Iraqis right now. The rest were all let to companies from other countries. So be it.

Unquote

I believe that several companies in the US has stated they won't commence drilling until the security situation has been sorted out. That is all of the insurgents have been dealt with and the country is once again "under control" I don't know where the two companies are drilling at the moment but it could be in the North where it is "reasonably peaceful" It could also be that the US are using umbrella companies to do the drilling. Using others to do the dirty work is something they are accomplished at?

[stamper]

Bernard,

If these monsters you believe are in charge here in the US are in fact capable and responsible for treasonous lies and mass murder, why didn't they just plant WMDs in Iraq or lie about finding them after they controlled the territory with their military?  Doesn't make sense that the grandest conspiracy of all time couldn't close the loop with a few planted chemical bombs, some anthrax and some nuclear material ... Does it?

Jeremy for someone who declared himself out of it you seemed to have jumped back in with both feet? Your time reflecting hasn't - imo - been useful?

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

Dagnabbit, I still feel that the only post in this entire thread that contained perfect, unmitigated Truth was my own photographic post of the Truth Wagon.     

Eric

Yup. This thread requires more images and less blabber.

[stamper]

This is not about Jews at this point its about getting the facts right.

At the time of the Balfour declaration and in the subesquent years following, the Jewish population that was to be in Israel was far greater than was realized in 1948, mostly due to one thing....The slaughter of 6 million Jews by the Nazis. Do you think that if there were 3 million Jews in the region instead of the 500,000 you would be happier? I know I would.

Joe,
       the crux of the problem is the amount of refugees that entered Palestine and settled on land that didn't belong to them. The UN vote meant that a large amount of people were forcibly removed from property that they legally owned. How would you feel if someone voted to force you out of your house and land and removed you in some instances to Syria? Was that democracy? There are some Palestinians still living in refugee camps in that country. This is old ground. There are a few people at the top of the Israeli government who don't want to give concessions to the Palestinians and they seem to want to speak on behalf of all the residents of Israel. They seem to defy democracy. If I was one of the residents of Israel I would feel endangered by their attitude. Why? Because if America decides to loosen, as is possible, their ties to the country and they don't make concessions then there will be a lot of problems with respect to preserving their way of life. Are you in favour of concessions or should the small clique that seems to run the country brave it out. I suspect you will state it is a democracy and they speak for the country, but do they REALLY?

[stamper]

Stamper, I'm not happy about the idea of falling out with you either. I've seen your photography and it's good work. I agree it would be better to get back to that.

I didn't feel the Vietnam war was worth getting into in the first place, but I felt that once we were in it we needed to get on with it and finish it. That's the way you minimize casualties on both sides. The idea of pursuing forces operating out of Cambodia came along late in the war. I don't know what China threatened, neither does anyone else who wasn't involved in communications with them, but they'd have had a hell of a time bringing effective forces into the fight. We had absolute air supremacy and absolute supremacy at sea. It wasn't like Korea where we'd pushed the North Koreans back to the Yalu river, next to the Chinese border, before the Chinese attacked on land.

My countrymen weren't against the Vietnam war at first. They turned against it when it became obvious to everyone that we weren't willing to fight it effectively. "Body counts" aren't exactly the kind of thing that makes a war sound worth fighting, especially if you're subject to the draft.

Russ what I should have stated was that China made the threat a nuclear one. That is what I read but I don't obviously know for sure.

[stamper]

Quote Mirislou

You are incorrect on so many levels. After the invasion, numerous chemical weapons were discharged. In most cases, they were artillery shells that were used in the assembling of IEDs. The people who did that probably didn't even know what they had. It's unlikey that those devices all came form a single large stockpile of weapons ready for use before the invasion, but there were nevertheless dangerous WMDs in Iraq, and there probably still are.  For some reason, that never seems to be acknowledged by the "there were no WMDs" crowd. So I am not "proved wrong." Feel free to continue your astonishment if you prefer.

First up chemical weapons aren't, as far as I know, classed as WMDs and were prevalent in every war in recent decades. They were present in WWW1 ? For you to assert that there are probably still are is astonishing. Is this written in one of the documents that you read or are you hoping along with the hierarchy in the US and the UK that they will still be found and there will be a triumphant declaration that exonerates them from their deceit? Surely after seven years evidence would have been found. I remember a large truck was paraded on television as a possible source but found not to be. Anything found now would obviously be treated with extreme suspicion?

[jeremypayne]

Stamper,

I'm done with YOU.  Sorry you hate your dad so much ...

Have a nice life!

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

Somehow I saw it coming ....
Its the nature of ignorance, hatred, war and all this disgusting stuff:
It infects, it spreads and it touches even the innocent.
Though I'm not at all against discussion I feel obliged to say, even discussing it can be contagious.

Why don't you post some images?
I'd suggest for every 1000 words in this thread one should post one image.

* Christoph C. Feldhaim starts searching for more images in his fundus ...

[stamper]

Stamper,

I'm done with YOU.  Sorry you hate your dad so much ...

Have a nice life!

Jeremy I didn't hate my Dad. I was brought up as a Scottish Presbyterian which was my Mother's faith. It was decided that this was best by my parents. I have no quarrel with the Jewish faith but in Scotland it is very much a minority one. If your remark was an effort to get me to overreact and get the thread closed you have failed. I won't lower my self to your level and say what I think of you. You have twice attacked me personally for no go reason. Others will see what you have posted and judge for themselves as to your worth as a human being? BTW I am not out of here I am staying despite your post.