Now I get it:Incestuous amplification

[46zilzal]

From an intersting book "The Banana Republicans" by Rampton & Stauber, p. 101

"In a democracy, Alwander Hamilton believed: The differences of opinion and the jarrings of parties...often promote deliberation and circumpsection; and serve to check the excesses of the majority. Although these jarings and clashings soemtimes seem messy, contentious and wastefull, in fact they are one of the great strengths of democracy in both peacetime and wartime.
If, however, a single viewpoint or party is able to DROWN out or suppress the views of others, a different dynamic sets in. One-party dominated states and hierarchical, command-driven social systems are notorious for their tendency to make disastrous decisions in the areas of both domestic and forreign policy. China's cultural revolution and the Soviet Union's failed economic developement plans are among the most extreme but not the only cases in point. In the field of foreign affaris, Napoleon and Hitler both disdained dissenting advice and found doom attacking Russia. Saddam Hussein met a similar fate when, after figthting a debilitating war with Iran, he invaded Kuwit and triggered the wrath of other nations. As we detailed in our previous book "Weapons of Mass Deception" the Bush adminstration seems to have made the same mistake when it believed its own propagnada promoting the war in Iraq.
The U.S. military has a term for this type of information system: "incestuous amplification", which Jane's Defense Weekly defines as "a condtion in warfare where one ONLY listens to those who are already in lock-step agreement, reinforcing set beleifs and creating a situation ripe for miscalculation." Psychologists have a similar term : "group polarization" which describes the tendency for like-minded people, talking only with one another, to end up believing a more extreme version of what they thought before they started to talk.

Rampant here

[Buckeye]

Yeah, but what if your guy had won? :)

[Buckeye]

Remember, it was sew close a recount could have put you over the top!

It's not "dangerous" to be in control considering the alternative was NOT acceptable to the majority of the American People.

That's something you may want to consider.

[46zilzal]

Remember, it was sew close a recount could have put you over the top!
I
that's how I voted

[ljb]

Buckeye,
The majority of Germans were in favor of Hitler.
46zilzal ,
This reminds me of when lsbets got so upset because someone asked Rummy a question that did not follow the "lockstep" curriculumn.
Carry on, we have a long way to go here.

[Buckeye]

Who did you vote for, one of the false comparisons listed above? :rolleyes:

"None of the above" is not who the majority of the country voted for.

I'm not even sure if the majority of PaceAdvantage voted for "you know who" :eek: :eek: :eek:

[46zilzal]

Did much the same as the very first time Nixon/Humphrey when I wrote in Mickey Mouse

[sq764]

TURN THE PAGE... IT'S OVER, DEAL WITH IT..

[46zilzal]

we have the turnip for four more years as his DITTOHEADS were oft mentioning

[Buckeye]

When you bring in Hitler, who I'm quite sure Alexander Hamiltion was not referring to, that's pretty much the end of the discussion.

[46zilzal]

When you bring in Hitler, who I'm quite sure Alexander Hamiltion was not referring to, that's pretty much the end of the discussion.

Single reference to his decision to invade Russia.....and I am QUOTING...did not write it

[Buckeye]

Iraq, Russia, what's the difference?

I believe it was Churchill who said, "Democracy is the worst form of government-- except for all the others."

Guess we're stuck with it.

[46zilzal]

Iraq, Russia, what's the difference?

I have NO idea what to make of that statement

[sq764]

we have the turnip for four more years as his DITTOHEADS were oft mentioning

Well you have no right to complain about him if you didn't vote against him..

[lsbets]

ljb,

I think you need to go back to elementary school and take some classes in reading comprehension. When you posted the link to the planted question when the reporter hijacked a townhall meeting with soldiers, I relayed to you the first hand accounts of my soldiers who were there at the event. You seemed to be pretty perturbed that I had knowledge from people on the ground and had a very hard time dealing with it.

P.S. - I know everyone, I fell for the bait, ljb laid it out there and I bit, but I couldn't help it, I have a nightmarish 3 days ahead of me catching up on awards and evaluations, so I need a distraction during that time frame.

[ljb]

lsbets,
Sorry but you appear to be too heavily indoctrinated to understand the truth. The soldier that asked the question was quoted in Time Magazine as taking full responsibility for the question. This thread explains exactly what you are experiencing. "Incestuous amplification" No need to reply as, there will be no more enlightment from either side on this issue.
On the other hand did you ever come up with an accurate number for troops per inhabitant in an occuppied country? Just curious .

[lsbets]

See everyone, I fell for the bait. Even when the truth smacks him in the face, ljb still cannot see it. He can't seem to believe the words of the people on the ground, because after all, his impressions must be more accurate than those who are there.

[ljb]

lsbets,
What truth? I have posted links to remarks from soldiers on the ground in Iraq. These soldiers disagree with some of what you are saying, does your rank make your words more truthful?
And again I ask you, have you come up with a number of troops required per inhabitant in occuppied countries? Remember i had stated a rule of thumb number of 1 soldier per 50 inhabitants you questioned this data and PA took me to task for my source. I am awaiting either of you to come up with an answer.

[lsbets]

Hmm, lets see - you said you heard some guy whose name you couldn't remember say that there was a rule of thumb, and I said I had never seen that number anywhere in any of the training I have had. The most important rule of thumb is METT-TC. It guides the whole planning process.

[46zilzal]

Well you have no right to complain about him if you didn't vote against him..


Anyone with rational thought processes is allowed to....not this crap "My country right of wrong".....

[sq764]

Anyone with rational thought processes is allowed to....not this crap "My country right of wrong".....

Then I must again ask, why are YOU doing it?

[46zilzal]

Then I must again ask, why are YOU doing it?

becuase it's Thursday?...don't need a reason to enlighten

[sq764]

If you were dissatisfied with the prior 4 years of Bush, why would you not vote against him?

[46zilzal]

If you were dissatisfied with the prior 4 years of Bush, why would you not vote against him?
okay?

[sq764]

I mean vote for a party that could viably defeat him

[46zilzal]

Went for the Fruit of the Loom party which advocated cotton underwear for everyone.

[ljb]

lsbets,
First I did not say some guy, I said a retired General speaking on CNN. Now is there a number of troops per inhabitant in occuppying countries? I do not know what the acroynom METT-TC means.

[Tom]

Confused here.
Is one guy here posting as two guys, agreeing with himself?
Or could there possibly be two "most annoying trolls on the web." :confused:

[lsbets]

I think its two guys Tom, but the similarities are Amazin :D

[ljb]

Well there you go again. When the questions get too tough try to make a joke or change the subject. For shame, for shame. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[lsbets]

Tough questions? Where? Just because you don't like the answers doesn't make the questions tough for anyone but you.

[sq764]

Well there you go again. When the questions get too tough try to make a joke or change the subject. For shame, for shame. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

You mean like 46zilzal's post: (when asked why he didn't try to oust Bush, but continues to moan and bitch about him)

"Went for the Fruit of the Loom party which advocated cotton underwear for everyone."

[ljb]

lsbets,
The question was/is: How many troops per inhabitant are required in occupied countries?
And your answer is????????

[Tom]

There is no single answer for that question. Use your head, man. Depends on the country. I know you have difficulty with questions, but answers might not be your cup of tea either. :D

[lsbets]

I gave you the answer, METT-TC. Tom seems to get it, its not that hard.

[Equineer]

Lsbets,

About METT-TC... apparently, given his public mission statements, you must be implying that Bush actually envisioned up to a decade of instablility and asymmetric war in Iraq but conveniently glossed over that METT-TC planning assumption when he sold the invasion to the American public.

If that was not the case, it is clear that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were clueless about E and C, which is the only way our puny mobilization can be rationalized.

[JustRalph]

If that was not the case, it is clear that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were clueless about E and C, which is the only way our puny mobilization can be rationalized.

Try this for rationalization:

This is the force left over after Clinton........after 8 years of Clinton and the Dems cutting our Military by 40% .........we are using the resources available to us. Cheney let some of this happen on his watch too. But Clinton and his "Military hating" Administration went after the Pentagon big time. There are some stupid reasons for having a lessor qualifed military too. After Tailhook and the resulting media frenzy, 40% of "experienced" Naval Aviators left the service. The Bullshit involving anthrax shots cost the military plenty of re-ups and in the recruiting arena you can only imagine what effect the publicity over some of this crap does. Much of these stupid problems are brought on by bad leadership in the military, but the Press takes every chance they get to "go after" the military. All in all, with the 40% force reduction and the other crap.....we have half the military we had in the 80's. And they aren't as experienced as they need be. As one who spent time in a reserve unit........ I can tell you that some of the reserve units aren't more than a group of guys who joined up to party on the weekends and pick up a check for doing it. And some of those units are now playing soldier in Iraq. Put the entire mess in a pot and simmer...........and you see what we end up with?

[Equineer]

Well, Ralph, as part of his pledge to cut the deficit in half, Bush has asked the current military to slash $60-Billion from it's budgetary plans during the next six years.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Lower taxes mean less not more military capability when new weapon systems like the F/A-22 are presented for Congressional approval as $35-Million weapons but costs are allowed to balloon up to $230-Million per aircraft before deliveries start.

Moreover, if Bush meets his target, the annual deficit will still be huge.

[ljb]

Tom, Lsbets and Ralph,
So basically what you guys are saying is: We were not prepared for this occupation of Iraq.
Just like I said "these guys are so dumb even when they do something wrong, they can't get it right! :D :D :D
Tom and Lsbets: YGASS-IMML
:D

[lsbets]

ljb, once again your total inability to understand even the most basic statements is painfully evident. I never said anything of the sort. As a matter of fact, a bunch of us were talking today about how much better things are than when we first got here, especially when looking at Easter Weekend. I know you hate to hear what the guys on the ground have to say, but anyone who was here in April will tell you things are much, much better now.

[Tom]

Ljb, enjoy your fantasy world. It must be a happy place where facts are not important, only feelings.

Personally, I was never prepared for the occupation of Iraq. Only it's destruction. I have adapted to the democracy thing, but it was never a goal of mine. Unlike you, I can grow and adapt. Not set in stone like you are.

[formula_2002]

Yeah, but what if your guy had won? :)


Then I would have expected you make the point.!! :)

[formula_2002]

Yeah, but what if your guy had won? :)


Then I would have expected you make the point.!! :)