<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm having a hard time tracking all this topic now, so I will just say that I'm glad Nem and Mike and Merx and others managed to post responsibly and with some actual brain usage in this post, and that it did not descend into a flamefest. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Especially when dealing with such emotional topics-- it's a testament to the maturity level on the board, I think-- ten pages of intelligent discussion? We've just bested the Yahoo message boards world record by . . . uh . . ten pages.
Re: name blaming about the state of current affairs in the world today, I'm not denying that all of our governments have made bad choices and regrettable decisions in the past.
But that's all history, and can't be changed. This is happening now, though, and if events can (possibly) be influenced by people for the better, then I think that we should try. At least nowadays we do have some control over our own governments (However little) compared with 500 years ago, or whenever. We've evolved from then, society has evolved, and we're generally just a better bunch of people. Or rather, I would like to think so.
I think it's also important that people distinguish between when people are talking about, eg, U.S., the country, and U.S., the government.
Im not quite sure what history has to do with it? Monse, are you saying that the US is allowed to make mistakes because the Europeans have made mistakes too? That its now your turn or something?
I dont think history (especially going that far back) is at all valid because as Nem said, our society is evolving, all societies do. He also mentioned the fact that we (or at least the majority of us) are a completely new generation and cant really take the blame for anything that went on before just as the current crop of Germans cant be given responsibility for the holocaust. In fact, to carry on that analogy, we all have some responsibility for it as we have to learn not to make the same errors and perpetuate the same ideas.
Yes, Europe did make many (_many_) mistakes and there is no denying that but that was a long time ago in our past and if I went back there Id be just as argumentative about them as we all are today. Europe has been around alot longer than the US and for the majority of the time we had very little education or anything. America is a relatively new country and so hasnt had time to make any mistakes and as its basically an off-shoot of Europe it started off at a fairly advanced level already so has no excuses for mistakes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin--> Technically, since all these problems we have with the middle east were caused by your countries, we should be sitting back here yelling at you to do something about them. However, we'd prefer if you at least let us do what we think is right (after intense internal democratic debate, unlike Europes long history of unilateral and 'king's decree'<!--emo&;)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'><!--endemo--> and mind your own affairs if you don't want to help <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We arent yelling at you to help them, we are yelling at you for trying to help them by attacking them. You say we should let the US do what it thinks is right? What if we know its wrong? Should we just stand by and let you do it because we made a few mistakes ourselves in our past? Thats like letting a country pollute the atmosphere while trying to become industrialised because we made just as much of a mess of the environment and they think its the right thing to do? No, instead we tell them how to do it properly, in this case we are saying dont bomb them. Finally, it is our affair, it affects everyone and the outcome will have widespread repercussions. We do want to help, we just seem to have a different idea of what help is!
We don't want to make mistakes, but we want the ones we do to be our own.
My personal opinion: Bush made a statement...that we would cleanse the world of the terrorists who attack us, and we'd chase them into any country harboring them, into the very depths of hell if we must.
If we indeed believe that Saddam is harboring terrorists or even the -idea- of terrorism, and we don't make good on our promise, what kind of country are we? You cannot show weekness in this game.
In a situation like this, no one can be allowed to make mistakes. [Drama]Lives are at stake![/Drama] There are lots of terrorist groups that he doesnt care about. Its a war against terrorists who are gonna attack America, not a war against terrorism. He probably only realised there are other countries when you got attacked by one.
'Here America, it's your uncle Europe. Sit on my knee while I tell you how to run your affairs'.
It's not your business anymore - although I fully believe that if Europe still had the power to act like the world's conquering barabarians, they would. You just wore yourselves out with too many millions of dead people in your world wars.
2000 years of bad behavior cannot be erased by 20 years of crocodile tear contrition. You still owe the world, and trying to make yourselves feel better about it by saying the US is this aggressive monster is ridiculous. We are defending ourselves from attack, and will continue to do so until we feel like terrorists are too disorganized to attack us and their harboring nations no longer willing to supply them.
Its not condecension, you feel you know whats right and if the situation was reversed youd be calling on us to attack while we sat back and acted diplomatically. It wouldnt be you being patronising, it would be you trying to help in the only way you could.
This is your choice, your affairs and we have no control over it. That doesnt mean that we are going to do nothing and while we cant stop you from attacking we can try and persuade you not to.
As I said, it <i>is</i> our business as it will affect us, we have an invested interest in this world and so we will try and influence it so that things go how we think they should. In this case as I said, history has no bearing whatsoever. The US is the most powerful nation at the moment, you are the ones in control, if we did act like your accusing us of surely that would push you further into doing something we dont want you to do.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin--> 2000 years of bad behavior cannot be erased by 20 years of crocodile tear contrition. You still owe the world, and trying to make yourselves feel better about it by saying the US is this aggressive monster is ridiculous. We are defending ourselves from attack, and will continue to do so until we feel like terrorists are too disorganized to attack us and their harboring nations no longer willing to supply them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Weve tried to learn from our mistakes and we have, we are more peaceful and liberal lately. We owe the world? What exactly do we owe, what do <i>I</i> owe? Nothing, Ive done nothing wrong and neither has anyone else. We arent saying America is an aggressive monster, we are saying that in this particular instance it would be wrong to fight as it <i>isn't</i> defending yourselves until you have been attacked.
There isnt a country you can attack with terrorism, its an idea, a memory, something intangible that cant be hit with bombs, only strengthened by them. When the IRA were planting bombs in london did we attack Ireland? Of course not. The war against terrorism wont end until noone holds a grudge against you and I dont think you are going the right way about it. You may stop them for a time, you can take out their weapons, the organisation etc (though youll hurt innocents while doing it) but they will come back. You want countries to stop hiding terrorists? At the moment its "If you have terrorists give them up or we'll attack you". In other words your trying to scare countries into doing what you say and trying to terrify people into giving up their beliefs. The UK wouldnt harbour anti-american terrorists because our nations are friendly, be friends with all nations and terrorists no longer have large backers, help the populace of those countries and the terrorists will no longer have soldiers.
Its pretty simple really. We dont think America is a monster, we do think what your doing is bad though. Just like during the holocaust (again), the majority of German soldiers werent bad people, even the SS were human. It is circumstance that makes us do monstrous things and if you can't see that what your doing is wrong your as bad as the people your fighting. That isnt patronising or condescending, its what I would call truth, probably what you call an opinion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->When the IRA were planting bombs in london did we attack Ireland?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, but you've attacked the IRA with special forces troops (the SAS, to be precise) in numerous countries on numerous occasions. Which suits the scale-- the IRA is composed of what, several hundred active members, and then a couple thousand sympathizers? Al Qaeda's a significantly larger group (especially when you add the Taliban support to their numbers), and Afghanistan is a much different target, politically and geographically.
This is far to hard for someone with my attention span to follow...I am glad to see we could however carry out such a civilized debate. My only comment is this: I find it hard to believe that all you doves would feel safe if you were one of Iraqs neighbors or targets and Saddam had control of nuclear weapons and the means to deploy them. If me caring about my saftey and that of my fellow citzens makes me a hawk so be it.
I feel no guilt for any of the atrocities which the UK has commited in the past.
Why?
Because it had nothing to do with me.
Perhaps I would feel differently if I felt more 'connected' to my country and government, to be proud to be english...but really, I'm not. I'm not proud, I'm not ashamed, I am indifferent. Basically, I am not a patriot.
Makes me think of a Bill Hicks quote...
Australian: "Wow, you're American? So, are you proud to be an American?"
Bill: "Well, I dunno...my parents f**ked there, and that was about it..."
Eh, same situation in America. A majority of us <b>finally</b> managed to agree on something this past election, and it hardly changed the course of events in the country.
Which just furthers my theory-- if terrorists want to precipitate any change in a nation (especially America), don't target civilians-- target the ####### special interest groups. <b>They're</b> the ones that forge policy in this country . . .
Precisely. Although, it rather depends on what the terrorist's goals were. Did they simply want to strike the US for revenge, or did they actually want to get rid of some important people for the good of mankind?
I would imagine the former, unfortunately. They claimed that they didn't intend for the entire buildings to fall but simply cause a bit of mayhem on the upper floors.
It's a huge shame, considering they had the ability to target some much more useful sites and get rid of some real evil people in the world...but they chose to target civillians. Bah.
(If anyone here failed to spot my grim humour in this post, please feel free to not flame me.)
Long tooth, that Hawks and doves analogy reminds me of this study done on evolution that had a similar if not exact name. Basically behavioural models were created and then compared by putting them against each other. It was worked out that all the models that were really aggresive and attacked first were always weeded out as they attacked back by the majority and all died. Those that never attacked became victimised and also died. In the end the best model (and one of the simplest, many of the were very complicated) was simply to do whatever was done to you last turn (turnbased) so if the model was attacked it would attack back, if it was treated in a friendly way it would reciprocate. It would sometimes lose admittedly but when done thousands of times it would always win by a large margin.
In the end attacking first was the losing strategy, we arent telling you not to attack, just to not make the first move. Oh and sept.11 isnt an attack by the country.
OK, I worte this two days ago, but couldn't post it. I wouldn't bother now, but it was a terrible bit of writing, so you're being subjected to it now. Sorry.
Hawks and doves
Evolutionary game theory is derived from the theory of games first formalised by Von Neumann and Morgenstern (1953). Consider a game where there are just two sorts of strategies. 'Hawks' always fight to injure or kill their opponents, though in the process they risk injury to themselves. 'Doves' simply display and never engage in serious rights. These two strategies are chosen to represent the two possible extremes that we may see in nature. How would evolution proceed in this particular game? Consider what would happen if all the individuals were Doves. Every contest would be between a Dove and a Dove so a truant Hawk would do very well and its genes would spread. It is clear that a Dove population is not stable because it can be invaded by a mutant adopting the Hawk strategy.
Now consider a population comprising Hawks. Every contest would be between a Hawk and a Hawk so the costs would be very high. A mutant Dove in such a population would do better than the Hawks so Dove genes would spread. In this model of Hawks and Doves natural selection would favour a mixed population of both Doves and Hawks, and the stable equilibrium would be when the average payoffs for a Hawk are equal to those for a Dove. When alternative competing strategies are at equilibrium it is described as an Evolutionary Stable State.
The thing I believe you are referring to, CMEast, is the Prisoners' Dilemma. Basically, two prisoners have been taken and are being interrogated separately. Each is told that they will get one year in jail as it is, but if you rat out your friend, we'll set you free, and your friend will go to jail for 5 years. Of course, if you both rat on each other, you will both be sent to jail for 10 years. Several dozen reactions were programmed, and the winning program (by a large margin) was '### for Tat.' Basically, treat your friend good. The second he stabs you in the back, do the same to him. If he lets up, you let up do. React only when the other person reacts, and repeat their reaction right back.
I know I dragged this waaaaaaaay off, but it IS applicable. If Iraq attacks, then I would have little qualms in seeing Saddam ousted. But until then, I cannot agree to an attack.
Axelrod and Hamilton (1981) used a computer tournament to detect strategies that would favour cooperation among individuals engaged in the IPD. In a first round, 14 more or less sophisticated strategies and one totally random strategy competed against each other for the highest average scores in an IPD of 200 moves. Unexpectedly, a very simple strategy did outstandingly well: cooperate on the first move and then copy your opponent's last move for all subsequent moves. This strategy was called '### for tat' (TFT) and became the founder of an ever growing amount of successful strategies. In a similar competition with 62 contestants, TFT won again. It has three characteristics that account for its impressive performance: it is nice (cooperates on the first move), retaliatory (punishes defection in the prior move with defection) and forgiving (immediate return to cooperation after one C of the adversary). -- Brembs.net
Edit: OK, my evolutionary theory was censored, and I can see why. I think everybody can pretty much figure out what it was supposed to say, so I won't bother using my 1337 h4X0r sk1llz (putting in a random space) to get around the censor.
Thanks H'BNayr, thats exactly what I was talking about and the Axelrod and Hamilton experiments were the ones I was talking about. I learnt all of this stuff awhile ago though so Id forgotten names and technical terms etc.
I dont see why 'prisonners dillema' doesnt have validity here.
guys look... i know that you in europe and usa have usually quiet life and peace most of the time. i live in israel everyday under the threat of terroizem. everyday i open my eyes double time to check any strange objects or people. and i got smarter from thinking everyday about the sitution. i got smarter not from hatered (At least not the most.. it still mad to hear that terroroists jumped over a car and killed a mother and 4 of her girls which were 2-8 years old all because they were the kind of ppl that live outside the israel borders). Anyhow though im well aware of the Israeli force mistakes i know that most soilders still keeping on human rights (yes i know its hard to belive cuz what u hear on the CNN is usually pro-arab which ffs u got no idea the exeguration[spell] of their things.
sometimes a war is neccery to make up peace. The best example is in evening b4 WW2. Hitler invaded to west of france i think, in order to capture place which had lots of minirals\resources THOUGH it was forbiden by the agreements. UK and France had the right to attack Hitler when he was still weak and prevent WW2 to happen, or at least minimize the size of the war. But they didnt attack and conitue letting Hitler the requird freedom to caputre near new democratic countries which had german civlians. Hitler continued to go against the agreements but noone did smth overwhelming to stop this maddness. The "best" action was the meeting with Hitler and Uk prime minister which said after the meeting (and b4 ww2) " I brought peace to our genration". This ofcurse was ****. the blindness and fear from war brought bigger one and much more, cuz Hitler was radical (like the Islam) and determined to full fill his desteny: to eliminate "inferior" races and jews. He grew stronger everyday and in the end of the war were 56,000,000 dead ppl and the holocaust.
we today live with peace (At least most of us), and thank god it is. but not every body is civilized or has LOGICAL sense. i dont care why Bush attacked Iraq for the first place. i dont care if it beacuse its finish daddy's bussines or the oil or the nuclar weapons. i care that they captured Saddam. Saddm is a bad person indeed and too much rough on his ppl. If someone of u will try to read about dictatorship regimes will find out what kind of evil regime it can be when egoist and cruel man sitting on throne. (it can be nice when the leader is someone that care for his ppl and mercful with them). WAR ISNT A NICE THING AT ALL, only in games but its neccery to make it in order to make peace in the world. Saddam isnt a right to live at all, he used to gas to kill ppl and no one did nothing about it. i can give 1000 of stories i have heared and read from sources about Saddam, but the problem you dont care, you live under the blindness of peace. peace is GOOD and desirable but IT CAN BRING DESTRUCTION AT THE SAME TIME. noone of us wants his friend or realtive to die in a war, and i know it very well, my brother is unit at many dangerous places.
Now that Iran start to devalop nuclar weapons, i fear it is the worst. the statement in Iran is Relighous fanatic, and i dont care what religous it is since RELIGOUS FATAIZEM is so powerful. I see it here, ppl (shaids) that not like everyreligous belive in DEATH, about the honor of DEATH WITH KILLING PPL. this is insane for some of you to realize how diffrent is the way of thinking. Iran can bring the end of the world as we know it, if no one will do smth fast. we once saved the world when destorying the iraqy core in 73 i think.
war is neccrey for peace.. i know i didnt maybe said it clear, but since its a close subject to me i had to detailed much from what i see now.
plz if u want comments e-mail me AVIV_AVITAN@coolmail.co.il
i would very like to discuss about with it, cuz i want to show u to full picture. i want to show u the angry i feel when Europe come to us cuz we killed 7 ppl in accident durning a opeartion but when they do suiside bombers us on us i dont see a fkn word everytime it happen.
IF YOU WOULD MORE INFORMATION I WOULD BE DELIGTHFUL TO GIVE IT. The picture is fkn big, and to be the only one in here to know all is fkn annoying me.
well... sorry for reviving old topic.. but i had to.
Tell me, if a oregnation want u to get off from ur country cuz before 55 years it wasnt belong to u, would u come out of ur country? do u think that if u wont make any action they will stop? why wouldnt them not continue it cuz they are very successful with it cuz noone gives a **** about what they do?
it seems logical what u said, but wrong. try to think more fanatic with it and see why the hell its wrong :\
<!--QuoteBegin-DR_FUZZY+Jun 20 2004, 01:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DR_FUZZY @ Jun 20 2004, 01:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>DO NOT BUMP ANCIENT THREADS</span>
Just make a new topic :/ <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Understood...it could be nice if someone will open a topic about the israeli-phalastni fight.. me and wow_niress could be a nice card of it (for me...just keep low lever english plz)
<!--QuoteBegin-DR_FUZZY+Jun 20 2004, 02:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DR_FUZZY @ Jun 20 2004, 02:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>DO NOT BUMP ANCIENT THREADS</span>
Just make a new topic :/ <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> But I thought you had to use the search and use existing threads on the topic rather keep making new ones? O M G, Double standards11! But seriously, while I wouldn't have got a thread this old, is there some sort of semi-official cut off point for this. It would be nice if the admin team had some kind of rule about this.
*Edit*Oops....Rule isn't spelt with a K. Also.... You should probably try the discussion forum for these sorts of threads. I'm not sure if this topic is banned there (I should check the rules, but I'm pretty sure it's only science Vs Religion at the moment), but you'd get a much better response. Oh and No offense, I'm assuming English is not your first language, but it maybe benificial to slow down a little and check through your posts, as they can be a little difficult to understand.
Heh , this thread necromancy is actually interesting... MonsE claiming the war in Afghanistan had reached its goals , with Bin Laden probably killed and Al quaeda strikes gone. Now we've all seen recent videos of Bin Laden , and several americans beheaded by Al Quaeda terrorists. The war in Afghanistan might have doused the violence somehow , if it weren't followed by an other war in Iraq.
Comments
Especially when dealing with such emotional topics-- it's a testament to the maturity level on the board, I think-- ten pages of intelligent discussion? We've just bested the Yahoo message boards world record by . . . uh . . ten pages.
But that's all history, and can't be changed. This is happening now, though, and if events can (possibly) be influenced by people for the better, then I think that we should try. At least nowadays we do have some control over our own governments (However little) compared with 500 years ago, or whenever. We've evolved from then, society has evolved, and we're generally just a better bunch of people. Or rather, I would like to think so.
I think it's also important that people distinguish between when people are talking about, eg, U.S., the country, and U.S., the government.
I dont think history (especially going that far back) is at all valid because as Nem said, our society is evolving, all societies do. He also mentioned the fact that we (or at least the majority of us) are a completely new generation and cant really take the blame for anything that went on before just as the current crop of Germans cant be given responsibility for the holocaust. In fact, to carry on that analogy, we all have some responsibility for it as we have to learn not to make the same errors and perpetuate the same ideas.
Yes, Europe did make many (_many_) mistakes and there is no denying that but that was a long time ago in our past and if I went back there Id be just as argumentative about them as we all are today. Europe has been around alot longer than the US and for the majority of the time we had very little education or anything. America is a relatively new country and so hasnt had time to make any mistakes and as its basically an off-shoot of Europe it started off at a fairly advanced level already so has no excuses for mistakes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Technically, since all these problems we have with the middle east were caused by your countries, we should be sitting back here yelling at you to do something about them. However, we'd prefer if you at least let us do what we think is right (after intense internal democratic debate, unlike Europes long history of unilateral and 'king's decree'<!--emo&;)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'><!--endemo--> and mind your own affairs if you don't want to help
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We arent yelling at you to help them, we are yelling at you for trying to help them by attacking them. You say we should let the US do what it thinks is right? What if we know its wrong? Should we just stand by and let you do it because we made a few mistakes ourselves in our past? Thats like letting a country pollute the atmosphere while trying to become industrialised because we made just as much of a mess of the environment and they think its the right thing to do? No, instead we tell them how to do it properly, in this case we are saying dont bomb them.
Finally, it is our affair, it affects everyone and the outcome will have widespread repercussions. We do want to help, we just seem to have a different idea of what help is!
My personal opinion: Bush made a statement...that we would cleanse the world of the terrorists who attack us, and we'd chase them into any country harboring them, into the very depths of hell if we must.
If we indeed believe that Saddam is harboring terrorists or even the -idea- of terrorism, and we don't make good on our promise, what kind of country are we? You cannot show weekness in this game.
<!--EDIT|rob6264|Sep. 10 2002,12:01-->
There are lots of terrorist groups that he doesnt care about. Its a war against terrorists who are gonna attack America, not a war against terrorism. He probably only realised there are other countries when you got attacked by one.
'Here America, it's your uncle Europe. Sit on my knee while I tell you how to run your affairs'.
It's not your business anymore - although I fully believe that if Europe still had the power to act like the world's conquering barabarians, they would. You just wore yourselves out with too many millions of dead people in your world wars.
2000 years of bad behavior cannot be erased by 20 years of crocodile tear contrition. You still owe the world, and trying to make yourselves feel better about it by saying the US is this aggressive monster is ridiculous. We are defending ourselves from attack, and will continue to do so until we feel like terrorists are too disorganized to attack us and their harboring nations no longer willing to supply them.
<!--EDIT|MonsieurEvil|Sep. 10 2002,22:07-->
This is your choice, your affairs and we have no control over it. That doesnt mean that we are going to do nothing and while we cant stop you from attacking we can try and persuade you not to.
As I said, it <i>is</i> our business as it will affect us, we have an invested interest in this world and so we will try and influence it so that things go how we think they should. In this case as I said, history has no bearing whatsoever. The US is the most powerful nation at the moment, you are the ones in control, if we did act like your accusing us of surely that would push you further into doing something we dont want you to do.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->
2000 years of bad behavior cannot be erased by 20 years of crocodile tear contrition. You still owe the world, and trying to make yourselves feel better about it by saying the US is this aggressive monster is ridiculous. We are defending ourselves from attack, and will continue to do so until we feel like terrorists are too disorganized to attack us and their harboring nations no longer willing to supply them.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Weve tried to learn from our mistakes and we have, we are more peaceful and liberal lately. We owe the world? What exactly do we owe, what do <i>I</i> owe? Nothing, Ive done nothing wrong and neither has anyone else. We arent saying America is an aggressive monster, we are saying that in this particular instance it would be wrong to fight as it <i>isn't</i> defending yourselves until you have been attacked.
There isnt a country you can attack with terrorism, its an idea, a memory, something intangible that cant be hit with bombs, only strengthened by them. When the IRA were planting bombs in london did we attack Ireland? Of course not.
The war against terrorism wont end until noone holds a grudge against you and I dont think you are going the right way about it. You may stop them for a time, you can take out their weapons, the organisation etc (though youll hurt innocents while doing it) but they will come back.
You want countries to stop hiding terrorists? At the moment its "If you have terrorists give them up or we'll attack you". In other words your trying to scare countries into doing what you say and trying to terrify people into giving up their beliefs.
The UK wouldnt harbour anti-american terrorists because our nations are friendly, be friends with all nations and terrorists no longer have large backers, help the populace of those countries and the terrorists will no longer have soldiers.
Its pretty simple really. We dont think America is a monster, we do think what your doing is bad though. Just like during the holocaust (again), the majority of German soldiers werent bad people, even the SS were human. It is circumstance that makes us do monstrous things and if you can't see that what your doing is wrong your as bad as the people your fighting. That isnt patronising or condescending, its what I would call truth, probably what you call an opinion.
No, but you've attacked the IRA with special forces troops (the SAS, to be precise) in numerous countries on numerous occasions. Which suits the scale-- the IRA is composed of what, several hundred active members, and then a couple thousand sympathizers? Al Qaeda's a significantly larger group (especially when you add the Taliban support to their numbers), and Afghanistan is a much different target, politically and geographically.
Ok,<a href="http://www.theonion.com/onion3833/bush_wont_stop_asking.html" target="_blank">tension breaker</a> . . .
<!--EDIT|BathroomMonkey|Sep. 10 2002,23:25-->
I find it hard to believe that all you doves would feel safe if you were one of Iraqs neighbors or targets and Saddam had control of nuclear weapons and the means to deploy them. If me caring about my saftey and that of my fellow citzens makes me a hawk so be it.
Why?
Because it had nothing to do with me.
Perhaps I would feel differently if I felt more 'connected' to my country and government, to be proud to be english...but really, I'm not. I'm not proud, I'm not ashamed, I am indifferent. Basically, I am not a patriot.
Makes me think of a Bill Hicks quote...
Australian: "Wow, you're American? So, are you proud to be an American?"
Bill: "Well, I dunno...my parents f**ked there, and that was about it..."
Which just furthers my theory-- if terrorists want to precipitate any change in a nation (especially America), don't target civilians-- target the ####### special interest groups. <b>They're</b> the ones that forge policy in this country . . .
I would imagine the former, unfortunately. They claimed that they didn't intend for the entire buildings to fall but simply cause a bit of mayhem on the upper floors.
It's a huge shame, considering they had the ability to target some much more useful sites and get rid of some real evil people in the world...but they chose to target civillians. Bah.
(If anyone here failed to spot my grim humour in this post, please feel free to not flame me.)
Basically behavioural models were created and then compared by putting them against each other. It was worked out that all the models that were really aggresive and attacked first were always weeded out as they attacked back by the majority and all died.
Those that never attacked became victimised and also died. In the end the best model (and one of the simplest, many of the were very complicated) was simply to do whatever was done to you last turn (turnbased) so if the model was attacked it would attack back, if it was treated in a friendly way it would reciprocate. It would sometimes lose admittedly but when done thousands of times it would always win by a large margin.
In the end attacking first was the losing strategy, we arent telling you not to attack, just to not make the first move. Oh and sept.11 isnt an attack by the country.
Hawks and doves
Evolutionary game theory is derived from the theory of games first formalised by Von Neumann and Morgenstern (1953). Consider a game where there are just two sorts of strategies. 'Hawks' always fight to injure or kill their opponents, though in the process they risk injury to themselves. 'Doves' simply display and never engage in serious rights. These two strategies are chosen to represent the two possible extremes that we may see in nature. How would evolution proceed in this particular game? Consider what would happen if all the individuals were Doves. Every contest would be between a Dove and a Dove so a truant Hawk would do very well and its genes would spread. It is clear that a Dove population is not stable because it can be invaded by a mutant adopting the Hawk strategy.
Now consider a population comprising Hawks. Every contest would be between a Hawk and a Hawk so the costs would be very high. A mutant Dove in such a population would do better than the Hawks so Dove genes would spread. In this model of Hawks and Doves natural selection would favour a mixed population of both Doves and Hawks, and the stable equilibrium would be when the average payoffs for a Hawk are equal to those for a Dove. When alternative competing strategies are at equilibrium it is described as an Evolutionary Stable State.
The thing I believe you are referring to, CMEast, is the Prisoners' Dilemma. Basically, two prisoners have been taken and are being interrogated separately. Each is told that they will get one year in jail as it is, but if you rat out your friend, we'll set you free, and your friend will go to jail for 5 years. Of course, if you both rat on each other, you will both be sent to jail for 10 years. Several dozen reactions were programmed, and the winning program (by a large margin) was '### for Tat.' Basically, treat your friend good. The second he stabs you in the back, do the same to him. If he lets up, you let up do. React only when the other person reacts, and repeat their reaction right back.
I know I dragged this waaaaaaaay off, but it IS applicable. If Iraq attacks, then I would have little qualms in seeing Saddam ousted. But until then, I cannot agree to an attack.
<a href="http://www.brembs.net/ipd/tft.html" target="_blank">Reading</a> <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/tittat/story.htm" target="_blank">is good</a> <a href="http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PrisonersDilemma.html" target="_blank">for you</a>.
-Ryan!
Axelrod and Hamilton (1981) used a computer tournament to detect strategies that would favour cooperation among individuals engaged in the IPD. In a first round, 14 more or less sophisticated strategies and one totally random strategy competed against each other for the highest average scores in an IPD of 200 moves. Unexpectedly, a very simple strategy did outstandingly well: cooperate on the first move and then copy your opponent's last move for all subsequent moves. This strategy was called '### for tat' (TFT) and became the founder of an ever growing amount of successful strategies. In a similar competition with 62 contestants, TFT won again. It has three characteristics that account for its impressive performance: it is nice (cooperates on the first move), retaliatory (punishes defection in the prior move with defection) and forgiving (immediate return to cooperation after one C of the adversary).
-- Brembs.net
Edit: OK, my evolutionary theory was censored, and I can see why. I think everybody can pretty much figure out what it was supposed to say, so I won't bother using my 1337 h4X0r sk1llz (putting in a random space) to get around the censor.
I dont see why 'prisonners dillema' doesnt have validity here.
Anyhow though im well aware of the Israeli force mistakes i know that most soilders still keeping on human rights (yes i know its hard to belive cuz what u hear on the CNN is usually pro-arab which ffs u got no idea the exeguration[spell] of their things.
sometimes a war is neccery to make up peace. The best example is in evening b4 WW2. Hitler invaded to west of france i think, in order to capture place which had lots of minirals\resources THOUGH it was forbiden by the agreements. UK and France had the right to attack Hitler when he was still weak and prevent WW2 to happen, or at least minimize the size of the war. But they didnt attack and conitue letting Hitler the requird freedom to caputre near new democratic countries which had german civlians. Hitler continued to go against the agreements but noone did smth overwhelming to stop this maddness. The "best" action was the meeting with Hitler and Uk prime minister which said after the meeting (and b4 ww2) " I brought peace to our genration".
This ofcurse was ****. the blindness and fear from war brought bigger one and much more, cuz Hitler was radical (like the Islam) and determined to full fill his desteny: to eliminate "inferior" races and jews. He grew stronger everyday and in the end of the war were 56,000,000 dead ppl and the holocaust.
we today live with peace (At least most of us), and thank god it is. but not every body is civilized or has LOGICAL sense. i dont care why Bush attacked Iraq for the first place. i dont care if it beacuse its finish daddy's bussines or the oil or the nuclar weapons. i care that they captured Saddam. Saddm is a bad person indeed and too much rough on his ppl. If someone of u will try to read about dictatorship regimes will find out what kind of evil regime it can be when egoist and cruel man sitting on throne. (it can be nice when the leader is someone that care for his ppl and mercful with them).
WAR ISNT A NICE THING AT ALL, only in games but its neccery to make it in order to make peace in the world. Saddam isnt a right to live at all, he used to gas to kill ppl and no one did nothing about it. i can give 1000 of stories i have heared and read from sources about Saddam, but the problem you dont care, you live under the blindness of peace. peace is GOOD and desirable but IT CAN BRING DESTRUCTION AT THE SAME TIME. noone of us wants his friend or realtive to die in a war, and i know it very well, my brother is unit at many dangerous places.
Now that Iran start to devalop nuclar weapons, i fear it is the worst. the statement in Iran is Relighous fanatic, and i dont care what religous it is since RELIGOUS FATAIZEM is so powerful. I see it here, ppl (shaids) that not like everyreligous belive in DEATH, about the honor of DEATH WITH KILLING PPL. this is insane for some of you to realize how diffrent is the way of thinking. Iran can bring the end of the world as we know it, if no one will do smth fast.
we once saved the world when destorying the iraqy core in 73 i think.
war is neccrey for peace.. i know i didnt maybe said it clear, but since its a close subject to me i had to detailed much from what i see now.
plz if u want comments
e-mail me
AVIV_AVITAN@coolmail.co.il
i would very like to discuss about with it, cuz i want to show u to full picture. i want to show u the angry i feel when Europe come to us cuz we killed 7 ppl in accident durning a opeartion but when they do suiside bombers us on us i dont see a fkn word everytime it happen.
IF YOU WOULD MORE INFORMATION I WOULD BE DELIGTHFUL TO GIVE IT. The picture is fkn big, and to be the only one in here to know all is fkn annoying me.
well... sorry for reviving old topic.. but i had to.
it seems logical what u said, but wrong. try to think more fanatic with it and see why the hell its wrong :\
Just make a new topic :/
Just make a new topic :/ <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
but its a bummer trying explain ur self in english but u just cant :\
this thread is 21 months old!
AND you double posted
AND you double posted <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
OMG A DOUBLE POST
LETS RUN AND TELL MOMMY!
anyhow
soz about the topic
Just make a new topic :/ <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But I thought you had to use the search and use existing threads on the topic rather keep making new ones?
O M G, Double standards11!
But seriously, while I wouldn't have got a thread this old, is there some sort of semi-official cut off point for this. It would be nice if the admin team had some kind of rule about this.
*Edit*Oops....Rule isn't spelt with a K.
Also....
You should probably try the discussion forum for these sorts of threads. I'm not sure if this topic is banned there (I should check the rules, but I'm pretty sure it's only science Vs Religion at the moment), but you'd get a much better response.
Oh and No offense, I'm assuming English is not your first language, but it maybe benificial to slow down a little and check through your posts, as they can be a little difficult to understand.