Re: [Vo]:OT- the 22nd Law of Unintended Consequences
Jones Beene wrote: Ever wonder why everything that the USA touches or attempts to do in a particular region, seemingly tends to backfire in the worst sort of way? Is it some kind of Crusader's curse? How about, it's prophetically ordained? --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]:OT- the 22nd Law of Unintended Consequences
Unintended or honourable attempt. --[very OT]-- There are times in history when Generals and politicians must attempt the impossible just to prove its impossible. The Dieppe raid in WW2 comes to mind. People were demanding action and something had to be done even if it cost thousands of lives. It did but it proved the point and resulted in the long term Quadruple strategy of: 1. Hold England and Egypt while using the size of the British Empire to balance the Axis. 2. Wear the Germans down in battlefields of your choosing, North Africa and Russia. 3. Keep the Russians fighting. Stalin threatened to negotiate a separate treaty. Hence Dieppe. 4. Call in Americans. Which took too long. Iraq was the threat. A real danger. Saddam, his sons and his party were killing people in the worst possible way. * Saddam was seeking WMD. Iran was seen as a greater threat in the 1970's so America under Carter was selling. After the Halabja poison gas attack Reagan cut support. Europe and Russia continued to supply. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wmd_iraq * Yes some of Saddam’s people were ripping the WMD program off for their own wealth. Swimming pools and playstations were bought or built with diverted WMD money it seems. :-D * In the last days of the first gulf war orders to use the WMD [gas] or destroy it was given. Those orders were quickly acted upon. * The orders were then contradicted when the US forces ran out of gas south of Basra. Are you going to tell the Dictator you had just burned his precious poison gas? The officers responsible filled the barrels with other stuff and tried to hide their action. * Trucks moved tons of stuff to Syria in November just before the “alliance of the willing” attacked. Was that WMD? * The tapes of Saddam’s cabinet meetings indicates that HE thought that he had a lot of WMD somewhere. * Radio intercepts indicated that the Iraqi officers thought; 'I may not have gas but the general either side does.' Radio calls were heard “ For Gods sake use the gas.” followed by the reply “I thought you had the Gas, @$*%#$” Staff cars were seen racing away from the lines minutes later. * We used Moab’s to obliterate the last line of defence around Baghdad. A Bomb that size can destroy a lot of chemical weapons and there is a good chance that the remaining chem. rounds were being kept close given the problem in the first gulf war. Moab’s don’t leave records or witnesses. Given all that I’m surprised we found what we found which was some documentation on WMD and a few scattered cashes of chem. rounds. Because the WMD could not be proven the Iraqi dissidents Iraqi opposition group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_opposition_group and Ahmed Chalabi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Chalabi , the major intelligence sources, were rejected as the ideal people to take over and run an interim government. Their advice to disarm the Iraqi army and put it to work rebuilding while they worked out who could be trusted was ingnored. We ended up with a shai religious dominated assembly and unemployed troops signing up with al-Qaeda or the Mahdi army. It was Ahmed Chalabi who thought the Iraqis would welcome the Americans and for a few weeks he was correct but with the Iraqi opposition group side lined the USA did not know how to vet intelligence officers or how to screen volunteers; interpreters, police recruits, etc. Miss handling those Iraqis that volunteered to help the Americans has cost them dearly. Note Australia has had very few casualties and we handle the Iraqis working with us differently. I’m an Aussy if you did not know. ;-) Yes Chalabi is up on Fraud charges in Jordan but you can’t run a government in exile with open books, you must conceal all transactions and if you can steal from the enemy; Go for it. We did in WW2. British Intelligence stole millions of diamonds from Antwerp as it fell to the Germans. The French resistance and others did equivalent frauds in occupied Europe. There was a time when the victor wrote the history. Today we live in an age where the vanquished continue to wage a propaganda war after defeat. Was it all doomed to fail? Perhaps, some have argued that democracy and Islam are incompatible. Arguably an attempt had to be made. Pulling out now just as we are learning how to beat the enemy would be disastrous. Are we ready for 5 million refugees, all of those that trusted us and now face death at the hands of whoever rises to the top. Are we ready for a war with Turkey and Iran as Kurdistan becomes a nation state? Arbil, capital of the Kurdistan Regional Government is the only place in Iraq you can walk free without fear of bombs or kidnappings. A Sunni-stan would be a haven for Al-Qaeda, the Shia provinces would in effect become a militant Iranian puppet state. Christians would be
Re: [Vo]:OT- the 22nd Law of Unintended Consequences
Gosh !, Golly !, Gee !, Wesley, are you and Jones telling me the world ain't run on the level? Who would have thunk it? Richard
[Vo]:OT- the 22nd Law of Unintended Consequences
Ever wonder why everything that the USA touches or attempts to do in a particular region, seemingly tends to backfire in the worst sort of way? Is it some kind of Crusader's curse? Do not adjust your (sub)set... The Law of Unintended Consequences is more than a version of Murphy's law, or even la loi d`emmerdement maximum which is the more insightful Gallic version of Murphy's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequence Unintended consequences are often the result of laws or imposed conditions which result in an outcome that is not at all anticipated by the genius-politicians, Generals, social planners, or elected religious bigots who dreamed it up to accommodate some illogical belief structure. Their dogma chasing my karma? Wiki mentions as an example the Treaty of Versailles, which imposed harsh conditions on Germany following WWI, leading some to opine that World War II might not have occurred without the 'unintended consequence' of that Treaty. But that view overlooks the overriding importance of the Great Depression. Things are never so simple as historians want them to be, and this L.U.C. is not to be confused with a true law anyway - catch-22 takes care of that ! The state of Israel is another example of spoils-of-war gone berserk - in today's context of finding the roots of terrorism. Makes me wish for a hasty return to isolationism. Elitism and Isolationism may not be PC these days, but they would appear to be entirely logical responses - in the eyes of a more advanced visitor from another planet. The law part of L.U.C. is that all well-intentioned human schemes have at least one unintended consequence. In other words, each cause has more than the one obvious effect, including negative or even reversed effects, which cannot be easily foreseen. The idea dates to the Scottish Enlightenment - Scots being notoriously cynical anyway. Unintended consequences can be classed into roughly three types: 1) A positive unexpected benefit (serendipity) which is rare in politics; but curiously is often closer to the norm in the RD laboratory. Probably why researchers innately are aware of this situation 2) Usually the L.U.C. is merely an unending succession of mild annoyances and nagging obstinate problems... kinda like M$ Windows g. A substantial minority of humans, sometimes a majority, abhor any kind of 'change' and fight it to the bitter end - even when they know they are better served by the change in the long run. Enforcement becomes necessary. This is the genesis of a catch-22 circularity. 3) A negative perverse effect, which is the opposite result of what is intended -- which is most often the case of the best-laid plans of mice and mentchen in the political arena... ... since in 3) the slightly contrarian position of 2) above - becomes the majority view - i.e. the Fall-wellian (im)moral majority gets into power or is denied power; then - in the extreme situation these zealots are willing to strap on explosives and blow up their own kin, rather than to submit to any kind of outside reform. Democracy may be a desirable goal in the West, but most Iraqis would welcome a return of Sadaam, or so it seems. Dramatic LUC scenarios (especially in art and cinema) often focus on the third situation of 'perverse results.' There is always cynical humor there. This dramatic situation often arises because a special-interest policy requires a disincentive (enforcement mechanism), and that is what causes reactions contrary to what was desired... i.e. a 'bureaucracy' arises to enforce the change. The Catch-22 is the general symptom of bureaucratic operation at all levels, and the natural illogic of an imposed no-win situation. In the fabulous eponymous novel, Catch-22 the idiom refers to a military rule which constantly changes (i.e. number of missions) serving to engender a mirrored insanity. All of this is a preamble to say that the upcoming surprise attack on Iran, likely to occur sometime before the next election, will assuredly have unintended consequences - unintended by even the geniuses in the Pentagon Has it not occurred to them that WE have now become the real international terrorists? The cynical observer of current events, might imagine that there was an implied admission by the British - through their low-key response to the recent hostage situation - that the enemy probably has a 'suitcase' nuke. OTOH - Moslem extremists would prefer to use it on a more hated target, perhaps Tel Aviv or lower Manhattan. A non-suspecting private Yacht sailing into NYC is a possibility. A good choice from the send-a-massage POV would be one owned by Richard Branson (no doubt named 'Virgin Atlantic). Anyway, please leave me to my own samsaric cynicism and delusional nightmares. Maybe this episode will result in a screenplay - but the Dramatic threat above - seems to have been pretty well anticipated for years, going back to 007.
Re: [Vo]:OT- the 22nd Law of Unintended Consequences
On 4/15/07, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Speaking of screenplays, why does the 'human predicament' seem to be so obviously scripted for the Law of Unintended Consequences, and/or the Catch-22 ? You *have* read William Bramley's _The Gods of Eden_, n'est-ce pas? Terry
Re: [Vo]:OT- the 22nd Law of Unintended Consequences
You *have* read William Bramley's _The Gods of Eden_, n'est-ce pas? Terry Hmmmmaybe, but do not recall it ... am heading to the library just now anyway, so its on my list. According to this review-- it is an interesting thesis - especially if more-than-one, shall we say: 'competing interests' has been 'lurking in the shadows of history for centuries ? My stepfather was an intelligent man, and devout -- but he refused to believe that the Jehovah and the Allah could be the same. Maybe they are simply different 'mainframes' so to speak Wonder which one reports to the AC Clarke obelisk g ? BTW ... W may have read Bramley (or more likely his speech writer): http://www.serendipity.li/eden.html
Re: [Vo]:OT- the 22nd Law of Unintended Consequences
On 4/15/07, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My stepfather was an intelligent man, and devout -- but he refused to believe that the Jehovah and the Allah could be the same. Maybe they are simply different 'mainframes' so to speak Wonder which one reports to the AC Clarke obelisk g ? Smart man. I equate neither Jehovah nor Yahweh nor Allah. I'll take Krishna. :-) BTW ... W may have read Bramley (or more likely his speech writer): http://www.serendipity.li/eden.html As a Bonesman, he *must* to be in the know. Terry
