Chef Jim Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 It takes more than one or two people to lead a nation to war. There are many, many people that would disagree with you included the author of the letter in question in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We Come In Peace Posted March 21, 2013 Author Share Posted March 21, 2013 (edited) There are many, many people that would disagree with you included the author of the letter in question in this thread. There are many, many, idiots in the world too. There's a difference between believing and acting upon bad intelligence and fabricating it. W's administration had a lot of hawks who saw to it we went to war, regardless of cause. But they couldn't do it alone and knew it. So a story was shaped. Lots of people on both sides of the aisle went along with it, believing it to be in the best interest of the nation. There were also lots of people who went along with it believing it to be in their own personal best interest. Edited March 21, 2013 by We Come In Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 There are many, many, idiots in the world too. There's a difference between believing and acting upon bad intelligence and fabricating it. W's administration had a lot of hawks who saw to it we went to war, regardless of cause. But they couldn't do it alone and knew it. So a story was shaped. Lots of people on both sides of the aisle went along with it, believing it to be in the best interest of the nation. There were also lots of people who went along with it believing it to be in their own personal best interest. Did all the other Countries that had the same intel fabricate their intel too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 So, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton plus a host of other dems and world leaders were all in on the WMD subterfuge? And hundreds, if not thousands, of analysts working with the raw intel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We Come In Peace Posted March 21, 2013 Author Share Posted March 21, 2013 Did all the other Countries that had the same intel fabricate their intel too? It was follow the leader. And hundreds, if not thousands, of analysts working with the raw intel. Yes. With senior administration officials cherry picking the data that fit the narrative they were selling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Yes. With senior administration officials cherry picking the data that fit the narrative they were selling. Funny. Not two posts up you made a clear distinction that the intel was fabricated rather than subject to confirmation bias. Now you're making the exact opposite statement. Kinda makes you a total !@#$ing retard, doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We Come In Peace Posted March 21, 2013 Author Share Posted March 21, 2013 Funny. Not two posts up you made a clear distinction that the intel was fabricated rather than subject to confirmation bias. Now you're making the exact opposite statement. Kinda makes you a total !@#$ing retard, doesn't it? I did? I don't think I did, or at least didn't intend it that way. I don't believe intelligence was fabricated in the sense it was made up from thin air while administration officials were twisting their mustaches, I DO believe that they cherry picked the intel that fit their narrative. There's a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 I did? I don't think I did, or at least didn't intend it that way. I don't believe intelligence was fabricated in the sense it was made up from thin air while administration officials were twisting their mustaches, I DO believe that they cherry picked the intel that fit their narrative. There's a difference. You mean like someone cherry picking your posts to see how wrong you are on a subject. When there is so much data, it happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We Come In Peace Posted March 21, 2013 Author Share Posted March 21, 2013 You mean like someone cherry picking your posts to see how wrong you are on a subject. When there is so much data, it happens. Truth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 If there is data supporting something, then data showing that supporting data is no good, and you cherry pick the supporting data and leave out the other data that show the supporting data is crap....is that fabrication or confirmation bias? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 That's cold blooded, homes. Don't you know who you are talking to? I mean the guy self-allegedly fired one employee and reduced the pay of his gardener by 30%, because "elections have consequences". He's a real stand up and principled guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We Come In Peace Posted March 21, 2013 Author Share Posted March 21, 2013 Don't you know who you are talking to? I mean the guy self-allegedly fired one employee and reduced the pay of his gardener by 30%, because "elections have consequences". He's a real stand up and principled guy. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 If there is data supporting something, then data showing that supporting data is no good, and you cherry pick the supporting data and leave out the other data that show the supporting data is crap....is that fabrication or confirmation bias? Is this a hypothetical question or are you referring to something specific? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We Come In Peace Posted March 21, 2013 Author Share Posted March 21, 2013 Is this a hypothetical question or are you referring to something specific? I don't think he was trying to be cryptic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 I don't think he was trying to be cryptic... I'd like him to answer the question. As a lawyer he's used to making prejudicial comments and then calling them to be struck from the record. I'd like him to actually go on record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 This is incorrect information. Desert Storm, Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom were all voted on and funded by Congress. While not formal declarations of war, they were not waged with Executive Powers alone. Now, we can quibble over the semantics, but anything costing over $3 Trillion (and climbing) and over 4,000 American soldiers is not what the Constitution had in mind when determining war powers and is precisely why Congress was called on to vote. The semantics in this issue are important, and people argue over them all the time. For example, I could just as easily argue that, as a state of war between Iraq and the US did not exist before the Executive gave the order to initiate combat in OIF, Congressional authorization for OIF did not in fact constitute a declaration of war (I believe that was roughly John Kerry's reasoning for voting for the authorization...he didn't support the war, but he wasn't voting for a declaration of war, merely voting to allow someone ELSE to declare war. Thus he "voted for it before he voted against it.") If there is data supporting something, then data showing that supporting data is no good, and you cherry pick the supporting data and leave out the other data that show the supporting data is crap....is that fabrication or confirmation bias? Usually confirmation bias. Because generally data is not all that clear on its own - I've seen it in hard sciences, and that data tends to be MUCH more unambiguous that intelligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We Come In Peace Posted March 22, 2013 Author Share Posted March 22, 2013 (edited) The semantics in this issue are important, and people argue over them all the time. Certainly, especially you and I -- or is it, 'me and you'? Usually confirmation bias. Because generally data is not all that clear on its own - I've seen it in hard sciences, and that data tends to be MUCH more unambiguous that intelligence. Considering the size of the intelligence fu*kup, and I don't mean the political fallout or military operations but more in the sense that nearly every single piece of "hard" intel that was presented to the public during the lead up to the war turned out to be incorrect, what's more likely in your mind: (edit: and I realize this isn't an either or situation, I'm honestly curious about your opinion on it) The entire intelligence community was duped and/or misled by Sadam's propaganda and intelligence outfits and that's what led to the failure or The administration, supported by a ratings driven media and fueled by an angry/grieving citizenry, pushed their own agenda for war with Iraq to the forefront of our national consciousness and forced the intelligence community to play ball or shut up? Edited March 22, 2013 by We Come In Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Certainly, especially you and I -- or is it, 'me and you'? Considering the size of the intelligence fu*kup, and I don't mean the political fallout or military operations but more in the sense that nearly every single piece of "hard" intel that was presented to the public during the lead up to the war turned out to be incorrect, what's more likely in your mind: (edit: and I realize this isn't an either or situation, I'm honestly curious about your opinion on it) The entire intelligence community was duped and/or misled by Sadam's propaganda and intelligence outfits and that's what led to the failure or The administration, supported by a ratings driven media and fueled by an angry/grieving citizenry, pushed their own agenda for war with Iraq to the forefront of our national consciousness and forced the intelligence community to play ball or shut up? When you say The entire intelligence community you really mean U.S, U.K and Israel - German and Russia intelligence never agreed, I thought French intelligence was on board but later I saw an interview where a Frenchie spook totally denied ever agreeing with U.S. intelligence assessments (truth or revisionist history who knows) - plus try to find an American intelligence officer who will take credit for that intelligence assessment, good luck, I've seen many CIA guys saying stuff like I don't know where the hell that Intelligence came from - I've seen no one taking credit for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Certainly, especially you and I -- or is it, 'me and you'? Us and Them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Certainly, especially you and I -- or is it, 'me and you'? Considering the size of the intelligence fu*kup, and I don't mean the political fallout or military operations but more in the sense that nearly every single piece of "hard" intel that was presented to the public during the lead up to the war turned out to be incorrect, what's more likely in your mind: (edit: and I realize this isn't an either or situation, I'm honestly curious about your opinion on it) The entire intelligence community was duped and/or misled by Sadam's propaganda and intelligence outfits and that's what led to the failure or The administration, supported by a ratings driven media and fueled by an angry/grieving citizenry, pushed their own agenda for war with Iraq to the forefront of our national consciousness and forced the intelligence community to play ball or shut up? Far more the former than the latter. I'm not going to give detail right now...largely because I've got a couple of sources here I can dig out that explain it better than I can do off the top of my head right now, and I want to look at them. But the bottom line is that people tend to see things as they expect them to be, and don't necessarily consider alternatives once their preconceived notions are proven. In ANY discussion or discipline. Pick an area of scientific research, and I'll find you a paper based on research that suffers from confirmation bias (and don't pick economics or climatology or sociology - nothing that easy). You can't read a single page of a newspaper (with the possible exception of the classifieds) that doesn't have an article that suffers from confirmation bias. People don't like proving themselves wrong, so if you're looking for something, you tend to find what you're looking for whether it's there or not. It's just that people don't usually start wars because of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 (edited) Don't you know who you are talking to? I mean the guy self-allegedly fired one employee and reduced the pay of his gardener by 30%, because "elections have consequences". He's a real stand up and principled guy. You'll stand in the shadows of men who stand in the shadows of men like me for the rest of your life. It stings because you know it's true. It's worse because you rely on me at the same time, and you always will. Edited March 22, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 It's as if you are a parody of yourself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Funny. Not two posts up you made a clear distinction that the intel was fabricated rather than subject to confirmation bias. Now you're making the exact opposite statement. Kinda makes you a total !@#$ing retard, doesn't it? Please stop insulting retards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 If there is data supporting something, then data showing that supporting data is no good, and you cherry pick the supporting data and leave out the other data that show the supporting data is crap....is that fabrication or confirmation bias? Is this a hypothetical question or are you referring to something specific? I think he was referring to Climate Change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Did anyone mention the "Indian Wars?" Custer and his men got their azzes handed to them. They didn't sign up for that either... I'm pretty sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Did anyone mention the "Indian Wars?" Custer and his men got their azzes handed to them. They didn't sign up for that either... I'm pretty sure. Custer's also a really good example of what I was talking about above. He interpreted the info he had according to his own preconceived notions, and got his ass handed to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 I think he was referring to Climate Change. He must have since this is obviously the climate change thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 To get full circle back to the letter and soldier.... You sign up for the military two days after a terror attack to join a fight against terrorism.... And then act like you are somehow surprised that it took you into bad situations you hadn't fully contemplated? Really? I guess he atleast gave himself 48 hours, so as not to make a stupid decision based on emotion, right..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We Come In Peace Posted March 23, 2013 Author Share Posted March 23, 2013 To get full circle back to the letter and soldier.... You sign up for the military two days after a terror attack to join a fight against terrorism.... And then act like you are somehow surprised that it took you into bad situations you hadn't fully contemplated? Really? I guess he atleast gave himself 48 hours, so as not to make a stupid decision based on emotion, right..... I think he would tell you that you're completely missing his point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We Come In Peace Posted March 23, 2013 Author Share Posted March 23, 2013 Far more the former than the latter. I'm not going to give detail right now...largely because I've got a couple of sources here I can dig out that explain it better than I can do off the top of my head right now, and I want to look at them. But the bottom line is that people tend to see things as they expect them to be, and don't necessarily consider alternatives once their preconceived notions are proven. In ANY discussion or discipline. Pick an area of scientific research, and I'll find you a paper based on research that suffers from confirmation bias (and don't pick economics or climatology or sociology - nothing that easy). You can't read a single page of a newspaper (with the possible exception of the classifieds) that doesn't have an article that suffers from confirmation bias. People don't like proving themselves wrong, so if you're looking for something, you tend to find what you're looking for whether it's there or not. It's just that people don't usually start wars because of it. Custer's also a really good example of what I was talking about above. He interpreted the info he had according to his own preconceived notions, and got his ass handed to him. This makes sense to me on a lot of levels. I'm not going to pretend to know the true motives of the people who led us down the path to war and confirmation bias allows a nice sidestep around that mine field. But it also leaves me with another question, is there a solution to this problem? It seems that we're living in a world now where people have their own "facts". If they don't like what they're hearing, they can turn the channel to either MSNBC or Fox or CNN or log onto a blog and get whatever "factual" reinforcement they desire. It's one thing for the mob to fall victim to this (that's kind of our job in the social contract), but it's another thing when it happens to our leaders. As you said, people don't usually start wars over it -- but if we're living in a more polarized world, one where facts are subject to debatable and more slippery than ever before, isn't it safe to assume this won't be such a rare occurrence in the decades to come? Please stop insulting retards Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 I empathize with him- however, it is no different that signing up for a home loan you can't afford then whining that you should be able to do or someone should make you whole... you signed up, you signed up.. Remember the scene in the movie Airplane!... LoL http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=Pn0WdJx-Wkw&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DPn0WdJx-Wkw "Shana, they bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say, let 'em crash!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Bush lied and men died. Why do you bushwhackers still deny that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Bush lied and men died. Why do you bushwhackers still deny that? I thought you decided this forum was too challenging for you and you vowed never to come back, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Bush lied and men died. Why do you bushwhackers still deny that? Because its simplistic and incorrect...........any other questions ? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Bush lied and men died. Why do you bushwhackers still deny that? Is that anything like Obama lied and Benghazi survivors are still nowhere to be found? Or Obama introduced and signed the sequester into law and 7 Marines died (according to Harry Reid)? Or Obama lied and Brian Terry died? Or Obama lied and Egyptians died? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 BillsFan-4-Ever lied when he stated he was never coming back here. He can't be trusted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We Come In Peace Posted March 24, 2013 Author Share Posted March 24, 2013 Because its simplistic and incorrect...........any other questions ? . Well... it's simplistic for sure. But is it technically incorrect? Bush did present false information in the state of the union and his proxies presented false information to both the UN and the press at large. So much so there are segments of the population that still believe the Iraq war had something to do with 9/11. The question is whether he knowingly presented false information -- and that's something we can only speculate about for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Well... it's simplistic for sure. But is it technically incorrect? Bush did present false information in the state of the union and his proxies presented false information to both the UN and the press at large. So much so there are segments of the population that still believe the Iraq war had something to do with 9/11. The question is whether he knowingly presented false information -- and that's something we can only speculate about for now. No. that is also incorrect. You can speculate and project (as you did in the other thread) all you wish. but all the principles in the Iraq/WMD debate (including Bush) have written about what they thought, and their speeches at the time are all public record. As to your reference to people "believing" that 9/11 had something to do with the Iraq war , well that is a great demonstration of ignorance. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We Come In Peace Posted March 24, 2013 Author Share Posted March 24, 2013 No. that is also incorrect. You can speculate and project (as you did in the other thread) all you wish. but all the principles in the Iraq/WMD debate (including Bush) have written about what they thought, and their speeches at the time are all public record. You of all people should know that you can't believe everything you read. Especially less than a decade out from the event when the principles are still alive and still trying to earn livings. History will be able to more accurately judge given some distance. As to your reference to people "believing" that 9/11 had something to do with the Iraq war , well that is a great demonstration of ignorance. . So you're going to tell me that there aren't any people in the US who believe the war in Iraq was tied to the 9/11 attacks? You reaaaaallly wanna say that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 You of all people should know that you can't believe everything you read. Especially less than a decade out from the event when the principles are still alive and still trying to earn livings. History will be able to more accurately judge given some distance. So you're going to tell me that there aren't any people in the US who believe the war in Iraq was tied to the 9/11 attacks? You reaaaaallly wanna say that? Do you ever wonder if there are people in the US that believe Gitmo was shut down? How about if you like your health plan you'll still be able to keep it? I wonder if some people think this is the most transparent administration in history? I also wonder if some people still believe this is Bush's economy? Shall I go on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts