The Geek Forum

Main Forums => Political Opinions => Topic started by: Demosthenes on May 27, 2004, 10:43:56 AM

Title: The War On Terror and the White House Poll: Part Four
Post by: Demosthenes on May 27, 2004, 10:43:56 AM
Round four.

Fight!
Title: The War On Terror and the White House Poll: Part Four
Post by: hackess on May 27, 2004, 10:47:11 AM
I can't help but feel that it's being used as a political/election tool, and that sickens me.
Title: The War On Terror and the White House Poll: Part Four
Post by: gorgeous_si on May 27, 2004, 10:54:08 AM
When it eventually got going, the war started quite well. The 'shock and awe' tactic seemed to work. But promising troops they'd be home in 6 months, announcing that the war had been won, the general handling of most problems that have occured since has been poorly executed. It's like they had this grand plan, it didn't work out, but they stuck to the script anyway!
Title: The War On Terror and the White House Poll: Part Four
Post by: Law on May 27, 2004, 10:54:56 AM
The war is over. Time to come home. Iraq is going to break down into sectarian civil war no matter what, we're just delaying the inevitable. The are some serious dictators waiting to come to power in the vacuum we created and we're just standing in their way...
Title: The War On Terror and the White House Poll: Part Four
Post by: Demosthenes on May 27, 2004, 10:58:01 AM
Quote from: gorgeous_si
When it eventually got going, the war started quite well. The 'shock and awe' tactic seemed to work.


The Iraqi military seemed to just fall apart and stopped putting up a fight, didn't it?

That's because they acted according to what they were told to do.  I've read a number of things from a number of sources that say that most of Saddam's forces had orders to not fight the American advance, but instead to change to civilian clothes, go underground to regroup, and start a guerilla campaign.

Gradually they've been joined by foreign resistance as well, from Syria, Jordan, S.A., Pakistan, and more recently in larger numbers, Al Qaeda.

I don't think "shock and awe" would have had the kind of apparent success if any real resistance had been organized.  I think it only appeared to work.
Title: The War On Terror and the White House Poll: Part Four
Post by: gorgeous_si on May 27, 2004, 11:01:49 AM
Quote from: Demosthenes
That's because they acted according to what they were told to do.  I've read a number of things from a number of sources that say that most of Saddam's forces had orders to not fight the American advance, but instead to change to civilian clothes, go underground to regroup, and start a guerilla campaign.

That doesn't surprise me at all - the initial stages were too easy, and there seem to have been more US/UK casualties since the war was 'won' than there were during the war!
Title: The War On Terror and the White House Poll: Part Four
Post by: Demosthenes on May 27, 2004, 11:06:56 AM
It was actually a smart tactical move.

When faced with an opponent who:
Title: The War On Terror and the White House Poll: Part Four
Post by: MISTER MASSACRE on May 27, 2004, 12:23:41 PM
MY NAME IS DONALD RUMSFELD AND I THINK I AM A GENERAL. WHAT'S THAT? MORE TROOPS HA HA YOU ARE SILLY THEY ARE TINY LITTLE DESERT PEOPLE AND THEY WANT US HERE. I HAVE MILITARY EXPERIENCE IN THAT I AM IN CHARGE OF THE MILITARY.

At this point in the war (major conflict is over, kids!), I think it would be hideously unfair for the U.S. to withdraw with things in the condition they are. I've used this analogy elsewhere (and I can't remember where) and I'll use it again here:

If you're a really aggressive television repair person and you show up at my house and yell "THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOUR TELEVISION AND NOW I'M A-GONNA FIX IT!" and run off holding my set, then I'm not expecting you to come back a few days later with the parts of my T.V. in your arms..."Oops, well, I did everything I could, this is up to you now."
Title: The War On Terror and the White House Poll: Part Four
Post by: biggyfred on May 27, 2004, 03:48:23 PM
Quote from: Demosthenes
It was actually a smart tactical move.

When faced with an opponent who:
  • Has technical superiority
  • Mobility superiority
  • Logistical superiority
  • Training superiority
  • Firepower superiority
  • Intelligence superiority[/list:u]

    You don't stand and fight.  You RUN.  Then fight from the shadows.  From the streets.  From the alleyways.  You nickel and dime them one and two at a time.  You draw it out, wage a long, slow, protracted war of attrition.

    A handful of even moderately-trained fighters with good tactical leadership can wage a guerilla war on an enemy that's superior in almost every way for a nearly indefinite period.

    It's actually pretty easy.  All you do is continue to harrass them and eventually they go away.
You'd think no one would know that better than Americans.
Title: The War On Terror and the White House Poll: Part Four
Post by: Demosthenes on May 27, 2004, 03:55:55 PM
Oh we know it well.  We taught the Mujahadeen in the Afghan highlands how to do it, and do it effectively just a couple of decades ago.

Those in charge of this shit sandwich knew and just didn't care.

Even knowing that doesn't change the outcome... occupying a country that has even a tiny insurgency waging guerilla war on you is pretty much always going to end up this way, and there is almost nothing you can do about it.

They had to know that this was how it was going to turn out once we got all of our troops and equipment in there and all of Saddam's statues pulled down.  They had to have known that it would be the occasional RPG shot at a helecopter here, and the occasional AK47 armed raid on an oil station there, and the occasional bomb planted here, and the occasional hostage taken there.  They had to have known that.

I refuse to believe that they didn't.

But knowing that doesn't change how you fight them.  All you can do is tighten things up and lock them down as well as you can, and wait for them to come and attack you.  With the best intelligence network you can throw together, this is still what it's going to come down to.

"Shock and awe" my ass.  This is like sleeping outdoors in the woods without a tent.

You hear the mosquitoes buzzing all around you, but you can really only slap one or two of them at a time, and even then only when they land on you.  And all you can do is sit there, scratching, bleeding, and losing sleep while you wait for them to land on you.

They knew.  The question is, why the FUCK would you enter into such a gawdawful scenario knowing how it was going to go?
Title: The War On Terror and the White House Poll: Part Four
Post by: biggyfred on May 27, 2004, 04:00:57 PM
I believe that they honestly didn't. I think they had been thinking about it for so long that it became a panacea in their heads. Life was going to be roses and puppy dogs and parades down Baghdad main street.

When the Army Chief of Staff says that it's going to take a coupla hundred thousand soldiers to hold Iraq and Rumsfeld comes on the next day, undercutting him with a "far off the mark", you just hope and pray that they're that fucking stupid.

I believe they are that stupid. It only takes two men in agreement to get something like this through, and obviously neither are the president.

This is where having a president that, instead of identifying with him cause he BBQs and wears fucking bucket hats, actually has an ounce of worldly understanding.
Title: The War On Terror and the White House Poll: Part Four
Post by: Demosthenes on May 27, 2004, 04:12:31 PM
Nice use of the word "panacea".  :)


You know, there's a part of me that thinks that as well.  That they're just that fricken blind.    It's just that that prospect frightens me so much that I'm in denial about it, so let me have my pleasant little illusion, mmkay?  :evil:


Lol.  You know, I'm sure it's always looking simple when you're playing armchair quarterback like we always do, but I honestly think that I could hand-pick a dozen or so people that I do nothing but piss around with online like this to run this country and we wouldn't do any worse a job.

Just among HNers and teh Geekery (OMFGLOL!!1) members I'd pick:
Title: The War On Terror and the White House Poll: Part Four
Post by: DiscipleOfChaos on May 27, 2004, 04:25:56 PM
Quote from: Demosthenes
Form a panel.  Make no decisions without discussing them thoroughly among ourselves, with everyone allowed to say what's on their mind about it however they like.


And then never get anything done; Any effective organizational structure MUST have one person making the decisions, or nothing will ever be decided. That person can - and SHOULD - have a well-informed advisory body, but there must - MUST - be someone whose ultimate responsibility it is to make that decision, and once made, that decision should be final.

A panel like this is good in theory, but if you needed full agreement from everyone in it to act, nothing would ever get done.

The problem is choosing a 'one person' who is capable of keeping the best interests of the country at heart.

Heh, I hate to bring sci-fi into a political discussion, but in Peter F. Hamilton's awesome 'Reality Dysfunction' trilogy, they had one 'kingdom' whose rulers were given literally unlimited resources, with anything they could possibly wish for provided. The theory was that, in this case, they would have no reason to not act in the nations best interest - after all, they would have no reason to do something for a selfish reason since they could have anything they wanted anyway.

Even in this case, it would still be tough to keep the people in charge from becoming oppressive, but at least they would take ACTION.
Title: The War On Terror and the White House Poll: Part Four
Post by: Demosthenes on May 27, 2004, 04:30:09 PM
Why not just make a 3/4 majority enough for a decision?

The way I see it, any course of action that 3/4 of the panel couldn't agree on probably isn't that great an idea to begin with.  Seriously.  I'd almost rather see the negative effects of deadlock/inaction than to see a marginally-passed decision sending everyone headlong down the definintively wrong path.

Power in the hands of one individual I have always thought unnecessary.

Personally, I think the executive branch would work better if it were a small governing panel acting through 3/4 agreement rather than one person.

It lessens the chances of... well, the shit we've had to put up with for the last six or seven presidents, for starters.


Quote from: DiscipleOfChaos
Heh, I hate to bring sci-fi into a political discussion, but in Peter F. Hamilton's awesome 'Reality Dysfunction' trilogy, they had one 'kingdom' whose rulers were given literally unlimited resources, with anything they could possibly wish for provided. The theory was that, in this case, they would have no reason to not act in the nations best interest - after all, they would have no reason to do something for a selfish reason since they could have anything they wanted anyway.

Even in this case, it would still be tough to keep the people in charge from becoming oppressive, but at least they would take ACTION.


Actually, that's a valid comparison, though I don't think it's a realistic one.

Take for example Heinlein's novel "Starship Troopers" (NOT the movie, but the novel!).  The only people that could vote or be elected to public office were those who were "citizens".  The only way a person could become a full "citizen" was to satisfactorily serve a term in the armed services, the length of which determined by the needs of the armed services.

The reasoning behind this was that the only people wielding political power then were those that had the nation's best interests at heart, demonstrated by their willingness to put themselves in harm's way to defend it by serving in the military.

It was an interesting notion, but I think the conclusions that Heinlein came to had some rather disturbing results, even if it made for an effective system of government.
Title: The War On Terror and the White House Poll: Part Four
Post by: DiscipleOfChaos on May 27, 2004, 04:38:29 PM
Quote from: Demosthenes
Why not just make a 3/4 majority enough for a decision?

Power in the hands of one individual I have always thought unnecessary.

Personally, I think the executive branch would work better if it were a small governing panel acting through 3/4 agreement rather than one person.

It lessens the chances of... well, the shit we've had to put up with for the last six or seven presidents, for starters.


I think that would be acceptable, but you have to remember that as soon as you allow the decisions to be made by committee, that committee will inevitable increase in size, and the more people that have to be consulted and made to agree on a decision, the longer and less effective any decision made by that body will be.

I suppose if you could make a panel of ONLY those people you listed, and assure that it would never increase in size - by only allowing new members when old ones die/retire, and declare it simple majority (or perhaps 3/4, bt that would again drastically lengthen the time needed to make tough decisions), it MAY work.

But really, with a voting system, things would work this way - easy decisions would be make instantly, since everyone should be intelligent enough to see the way to go. The tougher the decisions get to make, the longer it would take to make them, while the more critical it would be to make them QUICKLY. This is why, inevitably, one person making these decisions would be the best, IF that one person could be guaranteed to act in the people's interest.

Perhaps if the group has a majority vote on who in that panel would make the decision each time a decision needed to be made, and there was a relatively short time limit on deliberations to vote, then this rule by panel could work. This way, it isn't always the same person making decisions, but the panel could effectively respond almost as quickly as if it were only one person.

The problem with that would be guaranteeing that the person is picked in a timely manner. Perhaps someone could be appointed from the panel to be the 'default' decider, and if the vote hadn't been decided by a certain time, they would make the decision?
Title: The War On Terror and the White House Poll: Part Four
Post by: Demosthenes on May 27, 2004, 04:45:33 PM
Quote from: DiscipleOfChaos
I think that would be acceptable, but you have to remember that as soon as you allow the decisions to be made by committee, that committee will inevitable increase in size, and the more people that have to be consulted and made to agree on a decision, the longer and less effective any decision made by that body will be.

I suppose if you could make a panel of ONLY those people you listed, and assure that it would never increase in size - by only allowing new members when old ones die/retire, and declare it simple majority (or perhaps 3/4, bt that would again drastically lengthen the time needed to make tough decisions), it MAY work.


It would have to be a panel permanently limited in size, lest it turn into another legislative branch (with hundreds of members).  I'd still like to keep it small and effective, with the same powers as the current executive branch has, just wielded collectively.

Keep in mind I'm just playing around here.  I have no idea if this would work or not, or if it's just a stupid idea.

But it's an idea.  :)

Quote
But really, with a voting system, things would work this way - easy decisions would be make instantly, since everyone should be intelligent enough to see the way to go. The tougher the decisions get to make, the longer it would take to make them, while the more critical it would be to make them QUICKLY. This is why, inevitably, one person making these decisions would be the best, IF that one person could be guaranteed to act in the people's interest.

Perhaps if the group has a majority vote on who in that panel would make the decision each time a decision needed to be made, and there was a relatively short time limit on deliberations to vote, then this rule by panel could work. This way, it isn't always the same person making decisions, but the panel could effectively respond almost as quickly as if it were only one person.

The problem with that would be guaranteeing that the person is picked in a timely manner. Perhaps someone could be appointed from the panel to be the 'default' decider, and if the vote hadn't been decided by a certain time, they would make the decision?


Actually, what I was thinking of was a random determination of the effective "head of the panel", chosen periodically.  What do you think of that?
Title: The War On Terror and the White House Poll: Part Four
Post by: Anonymous on May 27, 2004, 05:52:27 PM
Quote from: Demosthenes
Then we could also form a foreign advisory panel made up of:
  • Kryzec
  • TheJudge
  • Lacerda
  • gorgeous_si[/list:u]
Oh yeah! Tha's all fine and dandy until we disagree with you. Then you'll tell us to fuck off.

lol
Title: The War On Terror and the White House Poll: Part Four
Post by: biggyfred on May 27, 2004, 05:57:12 PM
Quote from: Demosthenes
Actually, what I was thinking of was a random determination of the effective "head of the panel", chosen periodically.  What do you think of that?


The Fed chairman is selected the same way. He's nominated by the president, from a panel of the top Fed cool kids, essentially the same thing you're describing. The illusion of direct democracy would create issues, but this isn't a direct democracy anyway.

Or one of us could just win and select the others to be Cabinet members.
Title: The War On Terror and the White House Poll: Part Four
Post by: Demosthenes on May 27, 2004, 06:10:46 PM
I get the impression that if I were on the panel, I'd be getting outvoted more often than not.  :lol:
Title: The War On Terror and the White House Poll: Part Four
Post by: Demosthenes on May 27, 2004, 06:11:03 PM
Quote from: TheJudge
Quote from: Demosthenes
Then we could also form a foreign advisory panel made up of:
  • Kryzec
  • TheJudge
  • Lacerda
  • gorgeous_si[/list:u]
Oh yeah! Tha's all fine and dandy until we disagree with you. Then you'll tell us to fuck off.

lol


Well yeah... that's kinda how it works, dude.
Title: The War On Terror and the White House Poll: Part Four
Post by: gorgeous_si on May 27, 2004, 07:49:55 PM
Quote from: Demosthenes
Then we could also form a foreign advisory panel made up of:
  • Kryzec
  • TheJudge
  • Lacerda
  • gorgeous_si[/list:u]
I watch a movie, and come back to find I'm foreign advisor to another country! Just another day in the life of gorgeous_si! So, how much does it pay? :twisted:
Title: The War On Terror and the White House Poll: Part Four
Post by: MISTER MASSACRE on May 27, 2004, 10:04:33 PM
I want twice whatever you're paying him.

And he should get at least as much as me.

(HAR!)
Title: The War On Terror and the White House Poll: Part Four
Post by: DiscipleOfChaos on May 28, 2004, 06:50:35 AM
Quote from: Lacerda
I want twice whatever you're paying him.

And he should get at least as much as me.

(HAR!)


In that case, I guess we'll have to pay you both nothing.

 :roll:  :P  :roll:
Title: The War On Terror and the White House Poll: Part Four
Post by: Demosthenes on May 28, 2004, 08:21:40 AM
Quote from: Lacerda
I want twice whatever you're paying him.



*hands Lacerda two bottles of Labatt's*
Title: The War On Terror and the White House Poll: Part Four
Post by: gorgeous_si on May 28, 2004, 10:19:07 AM
Quote from: Demosthenes
*hands Lacerda two bottles of Labatt's*

w00t I'm getting beer! 8)
Title: The War On Terror and the White House Poll: Part Four
Post by: xolik on May 28, 2004, 04:34:04 PM
Vote poor. No clear, if any, exit strategy. No actual clear objectives, no real point in being over there in the first place.
Title: Re: The War On Terror and the White House Poll: Part Four
Post by: Kryzec on January 03, 2012, 02:36:36 PM
Quote from: Mr_Shifty on May 27, 2004, 04:12:31 PM
Nice use of the word "panacea".  :)


You know, there's a part of me that thinks that as well.  That they're just that fricken blind.    It's just that that prospect frightens me so much that I'm in denial about it, so let me have my pleasant little illusion, mmkay?  :evil:


Lol.  You know, I'm sure it's always looking simple when you're playing armchair quarterback like we always do, but I honestly think that I could hand-pick a dozen or so people that I do nothing but piss around with online like this to run this country and we wouldn't do any worse a job.

Just among HNers and teh Geekery (OMFGLOL!!1) members I'd pick:
  • DogStarMan
  • Pbsaurus
  • Ivan
  • Vespertine
  • BizB
  • biggyfred
  • Socrates
  • Detta
  • Banshee
  • Law
  • catwritr
  • Joe Sixpack
  • Xolik
  • PeyoteCoyote
  • Daria
  • 7thSon
Just for starters.

Form a panel.  Make no decisions without discussing them thoroughly among ourselves, with everyone allowed to say what's on their mind about it however they like.

Just a bunch of regular folks.  We could do it better than those 'tards could any day.  Or if nothing else, at least not any worse, right?

I mean shit... we seem to be better-informed, if nothing else.  A lot less prone to extremism of any kind.  A lot more willing to listen to alternative solutions.  Probably quite a bit less antagonistic.

Then we could also form a foreign advisory panel made up of:
  • Kryzec
  • TheJudge
  • Lacerda
  • gorgeous_si
The reason I think we could do AT LEAST AS GOOD a job as the Bush administration is because everybody I listed (plus a bunch I didn't) have one main thing in common:

The capacity for rational thought.  Opinions based on reason rather than dogmatic rhetoric.

That alone could be enough to steer things back onto a course more closely resembling "sane" than anything this country's been on in decades.

Oh crap! Sorry I'm a bit late. What did I miss? Anything important? When do we have a break?
Title: Re: The War On Terror and the White House Poll: Part Four
Post by: hackess on January 03, 2012, 02:50:22 PM
Quote from: Mr_Shifty on May 27, 2004, 04:12:31 PM
Nice use of the word "panacea".  :)


You know, there's a part of me that thinks that as well.  That they're just that fricken blind.    It's just that that prospect frightens me so much that I'm in denial about it, so let me have my pleasant little illusion, mmkay?  :evil:


Lol.  You know, I'm sure it's always looking simple when you're playing armchair quarterback like we always do, but I honestly think that I could hand-pick a dozen or so people that I do nothing but piss around with online like this to run this country and we wouldn't do any worse a job.

Just among HNers and teh Geekery (OMFGLOL!!1) members I'd pick:
  • DogStarMan
  • Pbsaurus
  • Ivan
  • Vespertine
  • BizB
  • biggyfred
  • Socrates
  • Detta
  • Banshee
  • Law
  • catwritr
  • Joe Sixpack
  • Xolik
  • PeyoteCoyote
  • Daria
  • 7thSon[/list:u]Just for starters.

    Form a panel.  Make no decisions without discussing them thoroughly among ourselves, with everyone allowed to say what's on their mind about it however they like.

    Just a bunch of regular folks.  We could do it better than those 'tards could any day.  Or if nothing else, at least not any worse, right?

    I mean shit... we seem to be better-informed, if nothing else.  A lot less prone to extremism of any kind.  A lot more willing to listen to alternative solutions.  Probably quite a bit less antagonistic.

    Then we could also form a foreign advisory panel made up of:
    • Kryzec
    • TheJudge
    • Lacerda
    • gorgeous_si[/list:u]

      The reason I think we could do AT LEAST AS GOOD a job as the Bush administration is because everybody I listed (plus a bunch I didn't) have one main thing in common:

      The capacity for rational thought.  Opinions based on reason rather than dogmatic rhetoric.

      That alone could be enough to steer things back onto a course more closely resembling "sane" than anything this country's been on in decades.
HEY! Who you callin' "less antagonistic"?!?[/list][/list]
Title: Re: The War On Terror and the White House Poll: Part Four
Post by: pbsaurus on January 03, 2012, 03:09:44 PM
I would want no part of any panel that would have me as a member.
Title: Re: The War On Terror and the White House Poll: Part Four
Post by: Vespertine on January 03, 2012, 06:15:01 PM
Kryzec and Cat in the same 7.5 year year old thread, on the same day!?  What the fuck is going on here?  Did we start the takeover and nobody told me!!!??
Title: Re: The War On Terror and the White House Poll: Part Four
Post by: ivan on January 03, 2012, 06:46:03 PM
I'm glad to see I'm on the list, or I'd've had to go on a mindless antagonistic rampage.
Title: Re: The War On Terror and the White House Poll: Part Four
Post by: 12 on January 03, 2012, 06:50:53 PM
Quote from: ivan on January 03, 2012, 06:46:03 PM
I'm glad to see I'm on the list, or I'd've had to go on a mindless antagonistic rampage.

You should edit yourself off of it. This shit is fuckin FUN.

rampage.exe
Title: Re: The War On Terror and the White House Poll: Part Four
Post by: Kryzec on January 04, 2012, 11:38:03 AM
Quote from: Vespertine on January 03, 2012, 06:15:01 PM
Kryzec and Cat in the same 7.5 year year old thread, on the same day!?  What the fuck is going on here?  Did we start the takeover and nobody told me!!!??

Heya Vespertine! Good to see ya! Sorry I can't give you straight answers about whats going on. You have to take those up with Cat.

 :w:
Title: Re: The War On Terror and the White House Poll: Part Four
Post by: hackess on January 05, 2012, 01:42:57 PM
Quote from: Kryzec on January 04, 2012, 11:38:03 AM
Heya Vespertine! Good to see ya! Sorry I can't give you straight answers about whats going on. You have to take those up with Cat.

 :w:

You were off taking care of that other part of the plan, Vespertine. That one. You know.
Title: Re: The War On Terror and the White House Poll: Part Four
Post by: Vespertine on January 06, 2012, 01:23:36 PM
Ooohhhh, yeah.  Um, I dropped the ball.  I should be fired and beaten.  With a spatula.   :wink:
Title: Re: The War On Terror and the White House Poll: Part Four
Post by: pbsaurus on January 06, 2012, 02:08:53 PM
/me goes to
Spatula CitySpatula CitySpatula CitySpatula CitySpatula City

Title: Re: The War On Terror and the White House Poll: Part Four
Post by: Socrates on January 09, 2012, 07:54:38 PM
I'm still amazed that Demo... er Mr Shifty would vote for me.
Title: Re: The War On Terror and the White House Poll: Part Four
Post by: Demosthenes on January 09, 2012, 09:29:24 PM
Well sure.... seven fucking YEARS ago.   :roll:
Title: Re: The War On Terror and the White House Poll: Part Four
Post by: Socrates on January 10, 2012, 08:04:50 AM
no take backsies

some day I'll claim that vote