Conspiracy Facts: The Poll

[mjd1982]

You know I really don't appreciate being called a air by someone who then cherry picks his quotes from a short one line summary rather than looking at the expanded full text.

LARGE WARS. Second, the United States must retain sufficient forces able to rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars and also to be able to respond to unanticipated contingencies in regions where it does not maintain forward-based forces. This resembles the “two-war” standard that has been the basis of U.S. force planning over the past decade. Yet this standard needs to be updated to account for new realities and potential new conflicts.

You sir are the Liar.

For those interested in the real story, read pages 8-10 (pdf 20-22) for the real story which states that the Two-War scenario was an accepted Pentagon Benchmark that "the Joint Chiefs have admitted they lack the forces necessary to meet." The Goal listed in the paper is to restore the Military forces to the "two War bench mark" not to go and fight two wars. mdj is a lair and a fraud and is now the very first person to meet my ignore feature.

I may well be a lair, I'm not sure.

The quote I have taken is from the key findings section. It states what are the key needs for the transformation. "Fight and win multiple, simultaneous theatre wars". Fight and win. End.

 

[Gravy]

If this is just a repetition of mjd's PNAC thread, I will ask that the two threads be merged.

Opinions from those participating? I see only identical arguments, as if that monster thread didn't exist.

 

[mjd1982]

If this is just a repetition of mjd's PNAC thread, I will ask that the two threads be merged.

Opinions from those participating? I see only identical arguments, as if that monster thread didn't exist.

go ahead

 

[Sabrina]

I'm not participating (I honestly find mjd's posting style to be arrogant and ignorant, but that's just his posting style as I've seen here and elsewhere, not necessarily a reflection on him personally) but I agree with Gravy. I think any posts with a connection to PNAC should be merged with the other thread and should stay there.

 

[Cuddles]

I think any posts with a connection to PNAC should be merged with the other thread and should stay there.

But would that be propitious to JREF policy?

 

[Brainache]

If this is just a repetition of mjd's PNAC thread, I will ask that the two threads be merged.

Opinions from those participating? I see only identical arguments, as if that monster thread didn't exist.

I'm not sure I agree. I started this thread with the intention of showing mjd that his arguments were not persuasive to anyone but himself. As I write, the overwhelming majority of responses to the poll demonstrate this (even bog snorkelling is more popular).

I was also hoping to push the other thread past this ridiculous PNAC bottleneck. This may or may not have been successful, but I see signs that the original thread is now moving on and I don't think that merging in a whole lot of PNAC arguments would be propitious to that purpose.duck

Based on the poll results I think the argument has failed and I'm happy to let this thread die. I'm keen to see mjd's next attempt at arguing his case. Call it morbid curiosity.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

Other than the line that states one of the 4 key missions should be to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars". Never mind!

The line you quote obviously refers to a desired level of preparedness, not a desire to actually engage in multiple wars. What a positively retarded interpretation.

You probably confused yourself by cherrypicking a one-line summary from the preface, while ignoring the more detailed explanation that followed only a few short pages later:

LARGE WARS. Second, the United States must retain sufficient forces able to rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars and also to be able to respond to unanticipated contingencies in regions where it does not maintain forward-based forces. This resembles the “two-war” standard that has been the basis of U.S. force planning over the past decade. Yet this standard needs to be updated to account for new realities and potential new conflicts.

You'll also notice that the two-war (multiple theatre) standard is/was nothing new. They basically said it needs to be updated. Stop pretending that the ability to fight multiple wars is some new standard created by PNAC.

You have very little regard for honesty, junior.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

And what happened to military budgets after 911? Do you know what % of GDP it rose to? And do you know what % of GDP they called for it to rise to?

Hey genius, here's a newsflash - wars are expensive. The increased military spending relates to the costs of war, not increased financing to fuel some sort of PNAC military transformation. Reality intercedes, you lose again.

 

[mjd1982]

I'm not sure I agree. I started this thread with the intention of showing mjd that his arguments were not persuasive to anyone but himself. As I write, the overwhelming majority of responses to the poll demonstrate this (even bog snorkelling is more popular).

I was also hoping to push the other thread past this ridiculous PNAC bottleneck. This may or may not have been successful, but I see signs that the original thread is now moving on and I don't think that merging in a whole lot of PNAC arguments would be propitious to that purpose.duck

Based on the poll results I think the argument has failed and I'm happy to let this thread die. I'm keen to see mjd's next attempt at arguing his case. Call it morbid curiosity.

Of the respondents, 19% agree with me. As a proportion of CTers who have posted on this thread, which is roughly 5%, this is a quite startling balance of opinion. Given that CTers will probably agree with me, and OTers will probably disagree, that the % who have indicated their agreement is so overwhelmingly over the proportions of the CTers who have posted on the CF thread, is highly telling, and supportive of the conclusion of the thread, I'm afraid.

 

[Brainache]

Of the respondents, 19% agree with me. As a proportion of CTers who have posted on this thread, which is roughly 5%, this is a quite startling balance of opinion. Given that CTers will probably agree with me, and OTers will probably disagree, that the % who have indicated their agreement is so overwhelmingly over the proportions of the CTers who have posted on the CF thread, is highly telling, and supportive of the conclusion of the thread, I'm afraid.

Here are the people who voted yes:

A-Train, bsw2009, Childlike Empress, Civilized Worm, cmcaulif, FatesWebb, fitzgibbon, godless dave, jaydeehess, leftysergeant, mjd1982, Peephole, Revolutionary91, slugmancs, Tippit, wooooody64

One or two surprises for me, but not what I would call overwhelming.

 

[Sabrina]

Shouldn't Rev's vote be disqualified, since he's no longer a member of the forum?

 

[Billdave2]

Here are the people who voted yes:

A-Train, bsw2009, Childlike Empress, Civilized Worm, cmcaulif, FatesWebb, fitzgibbon, godless dave, jaydeehess, leftysergeant, mjd1982, Peephole, Revolutionary91, slugmancs, Tippit, wooooody64

One or two surprises for me, but not what I would call overwhelming.

The thing is, you could believe that 9/11 was propitious to policy without believing in a conspiracy to bring it about. I wonder if some of the people voting yes are in that camp. As most of us have tried to point out, if your grandmother dies and leaves you a million dollars it could be considered propitious to you, but that doesn't mean you killed her.

Perhaps a better question would have been is this evidence that 9/11 was caused by the writers of PNAC

 

[mjd1982]

The thing is, you could believe that 9/11 was propitious to policy without believing in a conspiracy to bring it about. I wonder if some of the people voting yes are in that camp. As most of us have tried to point out, if your grandmother dies and leaves you a million dollars it could be considered propitious to you, but that doesn't mean you killed her.

Perhaps a better question would have been is this evidence that 9/11 was caused by the writers of PNAC

That is not the point of thee section, as I stressed for 60 pages. How interesting that you never succeeded in understanding this. How unsurprising too.

Your question, is currently being debated/evaded, on the thread now. Run along.

 

[Cuddles]

Here are the people who voted yes:

A-Train, bsw2009, Childlike Empress, Civilized Worm, cmcaulif, FatesWebb, fitzgibbon, godless dave, jaydeehess, leftysergeant, mjd1982, Peephole, Revolutionary91, slugmancs, Tippit, wooooody64

One or two surprises for me, but not what I would call overwhelming.

Hmm, out of 16 votes I make that 8 hardcore truthers, 2 that I'm not sure of but I suspect are thinking as Billdave2 says and 6 that I've never seen post. I especially like mjd's conclusion that there since 5% of posters are truthers this means he has won, despite that fact that at least 10% of the votes are from truthers and even at best this still means that less than 1/5 people agree with his claim of propitiousness, while saying nothing at all about the likelihood of conspiracy. So, not 84% then.

I probably shouldn't bother pointing out, yet again, that "the thread" != mjd and his conclusions are not the same as everyone else's.

 

[Billdave2]

That is not the point of thee section, as I stressed for 60 pages. How interesting that you never succeeded in understanding this. How unsurprising too.

Your question, is currently being debated/evaded, on the thread now. Run along.

Yes, I know it is unsurprising to you because I don't agree with you. That doesn't make what I am saying wrong. It has been pointed out to you countless times the errors in your assertions.

 

[mjd1982]

Hmm, out of 16 votes I make that 8 hardcore truthers, 2 that I'm not sure of but I suspect are thinking as Billdave2 says and 6 that I've never seen post. I especially like mjd's conclusion that there since 5% of posters are truthers this means he has won, despite that fact that at least 10% of the votes are from truthers and even at best this still means that less than 1/5 people agree with his claim of propitiousness, while saying nothing at all about the likelihood of conspiracy. So, not 84% then.

I probably shouldn't bother pointing out, yet again, that "the thread" != mjd and his conclusions are not the same as everyone else's.

I'm not saying "I won". I am saying that the stuctural make up of the thread was 5% CTers, 95% OTers. And I got 20% of the vote; more if you include abstentions, or whatever the 3rd category was. This illustrates a conclusion that is highly propitious...to me.

 

[Billdave2]

I'm not saying "I won". I am saying that the stuctural make up of the thread was 5% CTers, 95% OTers. And I got 20% of the vote; more if you include abstentions, or whatever the 3rd category was. This illustrates a conclusion that is highly propitious...to me.

Just because it is propitous to you, does not make it correct. In this case the two are actually mutally exclusive.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

I'm not saying "I won". I am saying that the stuctural make up of the thread was 5% CTers, 95% OTers. And I got 20% of the vote; more if you include abstentions, or whatever the 3rd category was. This illustrates a conclusion that is highly propitious...to me.

The conclusion you reach is moronic. Whether a voter actively posted on this thread is completely irrelevant. You are very, very lost.

P.S. I'm guessing that the 3rd category was more or less meant to mock you, along with your gross over-use of the word proptious. You'll notice that the folks who voted that way tend to regard CT's as whackos. Hardly "abstentions", genius.