Conspiracy Facts: The Poll

[Brainache]

In other words, the OP was right; it was a futile attempt to move beyond this ridiculous point and onto separate points in the debate.

Nice try though.

Thanks.
I was probably being too optimistic when I thought mjd might let it go and move on to his next point. His OP on that thread had a whole list of points he wanted to demonstrate to all of us misinformed or deluded JREFers. He doesn't even have to concede that he was wrong, just that we were not convinced.

Come on mjd, tell us all about WTC7! Inquiring minds want to know...

 

[MIKILLINI]

The doc has to advocate one course or the other, else it would be highly deficient. So either the doc can state openly "We advocate the ocurrence of a new PH"; or they can state what they did. It is obvious, again to all sensible minds, that the former is not really an option, hence the latter. And in any case, this does not, logically preclude the conclusion that a new PH was considered propitious to policy.

Now this is prime example of circular reasoning. I can take any document with this logic and come to the same conclusion you do Mjd, but first, I must have a suspicious semi-conscience propitious to conspiracy.

So either the doc can state openly "We advocate the ocurrence of a new PH"; or they can state what they did.

There is a consensus in this document and that consensus is a strategy session which came to the conclusion that these changes will take time to implement. You have admitted as much to that Mjd. BUT, you and whoever else takes this noted exception (absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event section) and apply it as design for an easier transformation. As you say; Propitious to policy. . You have not proven this document was intentionally written and it's authors intentions favorable toward a conspiracy to commit or allow a catastrophic or catalyzing event in order for transformations to occur more easily.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Post #41 for the millionth and one time. Now read it slow. We agree the document is about transforming the military from the underfunded Clinton administration.

But gee, transformation will take a long time, unless...

Unless....just how long you think? Do you see us getting out of Iraq or Afghanistan in the near future?

ETA; Read this part real slowly,RedI... Global leadership is not something exercised at our leisure, when the mood strikes us or when our core national security interests are directly threatened; then it is already too late. Rather, it is a choice whether or not to maintain American military preeminence, to secure American geopolitical leadership, and to preserve the American peace.

 

[mjd1982]

Now this is prime example of circular reasoning. I can take any document with this logic and come to the same conclusion you do Mjd, but first, I must have a suspicious semi-conscience propitious to conspiracy.



There is a consensus in this document and that consensus is a strategy session which came to the conclusion that these changes will take time to implement. You have admitted as much to that Mjd. BUT, you and whoever else takes this noted exception (absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event section) and apply it as design for an easier transformation. As you say; Propitious to policy. . You have not proven this document was intentionally written and it's authors intentions favorable toward a conspiracy to commit or allow a catastrophic or catalyzing event in order for transformations to occur more easily.

1. It illustrates that there is only one possible outcome for that scenario, and it is not an outcome that affects the proposition in any way- that a new ph was deemed propitious to policy. Not in any way.

2. a) You are twisting my words. Why would you do this? I am saying that the transformation will take years- it takes years to, e.g. militarise space. This is nto something that is precluded in tje doc. My, and PNACs point, is that with a new PH, it will be quicker
b) That "the doc was intentionally written"? Your confused. Not just there; the point of the doc is clear- the transformations will not happen overnight in any scenario; there are difficulties to getting it to happen , these will be overcome with a new PH. Yet we are not going to openly advoate such. This does not mean that such was not deemed propitious to policy, and coming to that conclusion rests on the premise that an easy transformation is preferable to a hard one, all else being equal. If you are a sensible person, you will realise that the opposie position is utterly untenable.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

for a guy still touts the zogby poll that says "84% say it's an inside job" you're having a hard time accepting the numbers displayed about you.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Just to deal with this post quickly- I have addressed this toooooo many times now, but will do so again. If I'm honest I dont think that these sorts of assertions would be made by the relatively intelligent people I believe you to be, were you able to look at 911 without complete self deception.

To take one example from this post, they did indeed call for the abiltiy to fight and win 2 theatre wars. Yet, they have failed to do so. This is because they have screwed up. It is because they are incompetent. It is, in short, a failure of execution. It is not because they did not see this as a aim to be pursued. It is not because this was not part of their design. On the contrary, it was almost certainly part of their design to be able to fight and win 2 major wars at the same time, hence why they engaged in such. (I think I'm right in saying its the 1st time in US history that 2 unconnected major foreign wars have been waged simultaneously?)

It is this distinction between design and execution, a very simple one in truth, that gets missed so egregiously by so many on this board, but one that is so very important.

ETA incidentally I dont know what Jaydeehess's ideological bent is, but he is pretty close to the mark in his post

No, you're busy making assumptions. The document calls for several things. The a bigger budget to have increased technology and manpower to fight and decisively win two wars, and time for the resources and reseach that will be required to get those things. A new Pearl habor was the last thing that would have been wanted and going into two wars under prepared, under equiped and having them go so wrong is completely the opposite of what they wanted. The plan they listed says nothing about having to go to war to get it done, in fact they wanted less resources spent on such things, not more. If you read it you'll see that they were all for pulling out of the Middle East and Korea, except they they felt that would cause problems there. Getting dragged into two wars in the Middle East was not the plan, they wanted decades of peace over which they could rebuild and strengthen the military to a point where no one would dare challenge them. The position that they are in now is totally the opposite of that. It is the exact thing that the writtersof the paper were warning about, the fact that the military was under equipped and under prepared to face this sort of challenge and needed to be strengthened and restored in case it had to do it.

Your reading of it is totally mereged with your bias that they wanted war at any cost. Stop running your own interreptation over it and just read the words themselves. You'll see that they advised a slow pace during which there was time to experiment with reseach and development and make mistakes in they occured. They suggested getting rid of projects that weren't really going anywhere, and replacing them with more targeted programmes. Going to war sinks that altoghter because at that point you have to get what you have out into service asap, you don't cancel it and start experimenting with new stuff.

Your claims do not make sense. If you stopped, threw away your political bias and looked at what happened, vs what the document says should happen, you'd see that they are two totally different things and only by your warpping the message it gives, taking parts out of contect, and applying your own interpretation to it can it even get close to what you claim.


And BTW, on the two non-connected war theatre thing, try looking in a book for 1939-1945. The Europe and Pacfic Wars were as connected as Afghanistan and Iraq are.

 

[RedIbis]

Unless....just how long you think? Do you see us getting out of Iraq or Afghanistan in the near future?

.

Nope.

 

[MIKILLINI]

1. It illustrates that there is only one possible outcome for that scenario, and it is not an outcome that affects the proposition in any way- that a new ph was deemed propitious to policy. Not in any way.

Unless someone makes an argument (well who could that be?), and in the context of their argument, determines that taking this angle is propitious for their argument.

2. a) You are twisting my words. Why would you do this? I am saying that the transformation will take years- it takes years to, e.g. militarise space. This is nto something that is precluded in tje doc. My, and PNACs point, is that with a new PH, it will be quicker

Clear case of you not comprehending or missing what I wrote, Mjd. Look again;

There is a consensus in this document and that consensus is a strategy session which came to the conclusion that these changes will take time to implement. You have admitted as much to that Mjd.

No twisting of words there.

And learn to read the whole sentence I wrote, correctly;

You have not proven this document was intentionally written and it's authors intentions favorable toward a conspiracy to commit or allow a catastrophic or catalyzing event in order for transformations to occur more easily.

It seems you stopped after intentionally written.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I'm sure glad my customers aren't Truthers. Here's something I wrote to a client a few hours ago. They're trying to out-guess the freight rate market to make their 2008 budgets. It's a real tricky proposition because freight is more a commodity now than in the past, and you can't simply apply inflationary logic, but have to go with supply/demand..... But I digress.... Here's what I wrote.

Pat/John,
The increases from Asia to Europe are going to be fairly large. The rates at the beginning of 2007 (which we locked in) are about $500/teu below what the carriers can get in the current market. They are planning another increase in October and then another on Jan. 1. All told, the rates as of Jan/08 when we have to "go to the mattresses" again, are going to be 650/20 and 1400/40 higher than last year. Absent some major crisis which slows down Asian sourcing - like an oil embargo, a war that blocks The Suez, or a global recession - I think you guys are going to take about a two million hit on transportation next season. Wish I had better news, but....(snip)

(bolding added for this forum)

Can you imagine what a Truther would do with that statement if some such disaster does occur. Why, I'm blatantly planning something to avoid them losing two million bucks. It couldn't be clearer!

 

[MIKILLINI]

I'm sure glad my customers aren't Truthers. Here's something I wrote to a client a few hours ago. They're trying to out-guess the freight rate market to make their 2008 budgets. It's a real tricky proposition because freight is more a commodity now than in the past, and you can't simply apply inflationary logic, but have to go with supply/demand..... But I digress.... Here's what I wrote.



(bolding added for this forum)

Can you imagine what a Truther would do with that statement if some such disaster does occur. Why, I'm blatantly planning something to avoid them losing two million bucks. It couldn't be clearer!

Certainly a parallel example, FMZ; Exceptions that would disrupt otherwise normal planning and procedure. Good example.
Unfortunately, there are those who believe exceptions are more of the design and the possible disrupting events as a matter of execution.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Certainly a parallel example, FMZ; Exceptions that would disrupt otherwise normal planning and procedure. Good example.
Unfortunately, there are those who believe exceptions are more of the design and the possible disrupting events as a matter of execution.

Well, I just hope nothing similar to those events happen, 'cuz now that I published the statement here, I'm either going into a FEMA death camp or I might be forced to take a radio show in Austin! "Hey, I predicted this would happen!"

Of course I also predicted the Thai Baht would crash (it's gone up), that the HK government would peg its dollar to the Chinese Yuan(Rinminbi)... which it hasn't done, and that Bears would win the Superbowl, but in the spirit of PrisonPlanet, we'll just ignore those.

 

[mjd1982]

No, you're busy making assumptions. The document calls for several things. The a bigger budget to have increased technology and manpower to fight and decisively win two wars, and time for the resources and reseach that will be required to get those things.

Time which will be a lot shorter with the occurence of a new PH.

Btw- where do they ask for lots of time for this to happen?

A new Pearl habor was the last thing that would have been wanted and going into two wars under prepared, under equiped and having them go so wrong is completely the opposite of what they wanted.

No, you're busy making assumptions. No, you're busy making assumptions.

The plan they listed says nothing about having to go to war to get it done, in fact they wanted less resources spent on such things, not more.

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!

If you read it you'll see that they were all for pulling out of the Middle East

Yes, like the line

Likewise, the Clinton Administration has
continued the fiction that the operations of
American forces in the Persian Gulf are
merely temporary duties. Nearly a decade
after the Gulf War, U.S. air, ground and
naval forces continue to protect enduring
American interests in the region.

Please read the doc before you challenge me on this

and Korea, except they they felt that would cause problems there. Getting dragged into two wars in the Middle East was not the plan, they wanted decades of peace over which they could rebuild and strengthen the military to a point where no one would dare challenge them.

LMAO, yeh, those peace loving neo cons. Again you miss the line:

ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:...
fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;

The position that they are in now is totally the opposite of that. It is the exact thing that the writtersof the paper were warning about, the fact that the military was under equipped and under prepared to face this sort of challenge and needed to be strengthened and restored in case it had to do it.

Which would be catalysed by what again? 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?

Your reading of it is totally mereged with your bias that they wanted war at any cost.

No, you're busy making assumptions.

Stop running your own interreptation over it and just read the words themselves. You'll see that they advised a slow pace during which there was time to experiment with reseach and development and make mistakes in they occured.

quote?

They suggested getting rid of projects that weren't really going anywhere, and replacing them with more targeted programmes.

Yes! Which would be facilitated by what again?

Going to war sinks that altoghter because at that point you have to get what you have out into service asap, you don't cancel it and start experimenting with new stuff.

Errr... then why did they go to war in Iraq again? And why was one of the stated goals of the US military fight to major wars simultaneously? You think the neo cons want peace?

 

[mjd1982]

for a guy still touts the zogby poll that says "84% say it's an inside job" you're having a hard time accepting the numbers displayed about you.

where have I said that?

 

[Unsecured Coins]

where have I said that?

This is a pretty well known poll. Only 16% of US believe the Gov is telling the truh on what it knew prior to 911, i.e. part of the OT

http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=1686&view=findpost&p=19145

 

[mjd1982]

http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=1686&view=findpost&p=19145

which is completely different to what u have claimed.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Time which will be a lot shorter with the occurence of a new PH.

Btw- where do they ask for lots of time for this to happen?

This is an effort that involves more than new weaponry or technologies. It requires experimental units free to invent new concepts of operation, new doctrines, new tactics. It will require years, even decades, to fully grasp and implement such changes, and will surely involve mistakes and inefficiencies. Yet the maintenance of the American peace requires that American forces be preeminent when they are called upon to face very different adversaries in the future.

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!

Errr... then why did they go to war in Iraq again? And why was one of the stated goals of the US military fight to major wars simultaneously? You think the neo cons want peace?

No, the mission goal they stated is to be ABLE to fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars. Having a military able to do something does not mean you want it to go and do that thing. If I say that our (NZ's) military should have as a Mission goal that they can fight and decisively win a war against any of our neighbouring countries, am I advocating that they should be able to win a war if one occurs, or that they should go out and start one? Saying that you should make it a goal to be able to do something does not mean that you are going out to to it, just that you are in the position to do it if it's required.

Which would be catalysed by what again? 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?

Yes! Which would be facilitated by what again?

It doesn't have to be "catalysed" or "facilitated" by anything. If I say that "I need to refurbish my house and that it is going to take years to do this, short of a relative dying and leaving me all their money" am I suggesting that I am planning to go and kill a relative to get their money to refurbish my house, or am I pointing out that since that event is unlikely I'm going to have to be prepared for the plan to refurbish my home to take a long time? In the same way the plan outlined was set up to take a long time, the writters of the report realised that and wrote it as such making it clear that to do it properly was going to take a long time and that those dealing with the situation should realise that and plan accordingly. Under your interpretation why bother outlining the long haul if it was never intended to be used. Why plan for a long term plan and then totally subvert and ruin it?

quote?

Sure here you go, a prefect example...

LMAO, yeh, those peace loving neo cons.

 

[mjd1982]

This is an effort that involves more than new weaponry or technologies. It requires experimental units free to invent new concepts of operation, new doctrines, new tactics. It will require years, even decades, to fully grasp and implement such changes, and will surely involve mistakes and inefficiencies. Yet the maintenance of the American peace requires that American forces be preeminent when they are called upon to face very different adversaries in the future.

Good. So precisely what I have said previously. The change will not be able to happen, under any circumstances, overnight. But for it to take too long is something that is not viewed favourably. We can see this here with the use of the "yet" clause. The length of transformation is not viewed favourably, but is unavoidable. What a new PH will do, is reduce that length, thus creating a more favourable timespan for the transformation. So as has been demonstrated time and again, the slowest possible transformation (i.e. absent a new PH) is not deemed as propitious to policy, as a quicker one.

No, the mission goal they stated is to be ABLE to fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars. Having a military able to do something does not mean you want it to go and do that thing. If I say that our (NZ's) military should have as a Mission goal that they can fight and decisively win a war against any of our neighbouring countries, am I advocating that they should be able to win a war if one occurs, or that they should go out and start one? Saying that you should make it a goal to be able to do something does not mean that you are going out to to it, just that you are in the position to do it if it's required.

Now you are just lying.

ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:...
fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;

It doesn't have to be "catalysed" or "facilitated" by anything. If I say that "I need to refurbish my house and that it is going to take years to do this, short of a relative dying and leaving me all their money" am I suggesting that I am planning to go and kill a relative to get their money to refurbish my house, or am I pointing out that since that event is unlikely I'm going to have to be prepared for the plan to refurbish my home to take a long time? In the same way the plan outlined was set up to take a long time, the writters of the report realised that and wrote it as such making it clear that to do it properly was going to take a long time and that those dealing with the situation should realise that and plan accordingly. Under your interpretation why bother outlining the long haul if it was never intended to be used. Why plan for a long term plan and then totally subvert and ruin it?

This has been dealt with time and again. 1stly, its not a matter of outlining it "for the long haul", since as I have said, the complete transformation will be a long haul in any case. You are arguiing taht they want it to be done in the longest haul. If you are going to make that contention, you will have to support it. I have shown, in the very same paragraph as the PH comment, why a new PH would make things quicker- it would obviate difficulties. You have to show my why they want these difficulties to be part of their transformation. Yes, your task is that difficult.

 

[Brainache]

Good. So precisely what I have said previously. The change will not be able to happen, under any circumstances, overnight. But for it to take too long is something that is not viewed favourably. We can see this here with the use of the "yet" clause. The length of transformation is not viewed favourably, but is unavoidable. What a new PH will do, is reduce that length, thus creating a more favourable timespan for the transformation. So as has been demonstrated time and again, the slowest possible transformation (i.e. absent a new PH) is not deemed as propitious to policy, as a quicker one.

This is an effort that involves more than new weaponry or technologies. It requires experimental units free to invent new concepts of operation, new doctrines, new tactics. It will require years, even decades, to fully grasp and implement such changes, and will surely involve mistakes and inefficiencies. Yet the maintenance of the American peace requires that American forces be preeminent when they are called upon to face very different adversaries in the future.

Now you are just lying.

This is an effort that involves more than new weaponry or technologies. It requires experimental units free to invent new concepts of operation, new doctrines, new tactics. It will require years, even decades, to fully grasp and implement such changes, and will surely involve mistakes and inefficiencies. Yet the maintenance of the American peace requires that American forces be preeminent when they are called upon to face very different adversaries in the future.

This has been dealt with time and again. 1stly, its not a matter of outlining it "for the long haul", since as I have said, the complete transformation will be a long haul in any case. You are arguiing taht they want it to be done in the longest haul. If you are going to make that contention, you will have to support it. I have shown, in the very same paragraph as the PH comment, why a new PH would make things quicker- it would obviate difficulties. You have to show my why they want these difficulties to be part of their transformation. Yes, your task is that difficult.

This is an effort that involves more than new weaponry or technologies. It requires experimental units free to invent new concepts of operation, new doctrines, new tactics. It will require years, even decades, to fully grasp and implement such changes, and will surely involve mistakes and inefficiencies. Yet the maintenance of the American peace requires that American forces be preeminent when they are called upon to face very different adversaries in the future.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Now you are just lying.

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.

 

[mjd1982]

This is an effort that involves more than new weaponry or technologies. It requires experimental units free to invent new concepts of operation, new doctrines, new tactics. It will require years, even decades, to fully grasp and implement such changes, and will surely involve mistakes and inefficiencies. Yet the maintenance of the American peace requires that American forces be preeminent when they are called upon to face very different adversaries in the future.



This is an effort that involves more than new weaponry or technologies. It requires experimental units free to invent new concepts of operation, new doctrines, new tactics. It will require years, even decades, to fully grasp and implement such changes, and will surely involve mistakes and inefficiencies. Yet the maintenance of the American peace requires that American forces be preeminent when they are called upon to face very different adversaries in the future.





This is an effort that involves more than new weaponry or technologies. It requires experimental units free to invent new concepts of operation, new doctrines, new tactics. It will require years, even decades, to fully grasp and implement such changes, and will surely involve mistakes and inefficiencies. Yet the maintenance of the American peace requires that American forces be preeminent when they are called upon to face very different adversaries in the future.

youve repeated yourself 3 times. I have already dealt with your repetition.