Comments on: Foot in the Mouth

By: genie-in-a-bottle

genie-in-a-bottle — Thu, 23 Dec 2004 11:54:22 +0000

Alpha..tu jaha jaha rahega..mera sayaa saath hogaa mera saayaa…..aaaa……

By: Patrix

Patrix — Thu, 23 Dec 2004 04:42:17 +0000

Father Alpha/alpha – Some absences are better left unexplained but the next post should let you know. Corner? When? Which? Pi out of town?…yay!

Genie – Alpha has literally invented kink

Deepa – Thanks..I have moved on..momentary lapse of reason.

By: Deepa

Deepa — Wed, 22 Dec 2004 23:14:14 +0000

hey patrix.. dont be so hard on yourself..
there’s a lot of truth in your post…

By: alpha

alpha — Wed, 22 Dec 2004 17:14:25 +0000

ainks genie! You here too? I am not planning on a ‘kisshie move’.

By: genie-in-a-bottle

genie-in-a-bottle — Wed, 22 Dec 2004 07:37:19 +0000

FATHER ALPHA, looks like kink has caught on.

By: father alpha

father alpha — Wed, 22 Dec 2004 01:02:33 +0000

Child, confession time is up. You shall be forgiven only if you come with me to the corner…

By: HPP

HPP — Tue, 21 Dec 2004 15:17:28 +0000

Hey, seems a lot of interest in the paper. Have lost it but shall try to track it. (No access to acad databases in my current job). For those of you at a univ with access to a catalogue. Hints: author: friedman. paper was some time in early 1990s. key words: game theory, war; should help but could be too many papers.

If you find the paper, i’d be grateful for a copy.

By: :-)

:-) — Tue, 21 Dec 2004 07:26:15 +0000

HPP: Would love to get my hands on the paper.

By: Patrix

Patrix — Tue, 21 Dec 2004 04:07:53 +0000

Adi – Drop me a line when you get here..will defn.meet up.

By: adi

adi — Tue, 21 Dec 2004 01:45:45 +0000

dude, dint know u were in atlanta … might meet ya soon ;-)

and oh yeah, im not good at throwing brickbats

By: Patrix

Patrix — Mon, 20 Dec 2004 19:59:24 +0000

Smiley – Nope. Not killing myself but just afraid that the soldiers might be killing themselves for am unjustified cause.The War to end all wars hasn’t happened yet I guess.

Killing and looting over an extended period of time desensitizes even the most empathatic soldier. No wonder the psychological clinics in the US work overtime to handle the dramatic shift in the climate…almost nothing in the US to chaotic violence in Vietnam, Iraq, Somalia, etc.

Seema – I just hope it ends soon..how is another matter.

Heretic – Looks like you have put the whole thing in a different perspective. But I will disagree. If soldiers start making individual decisions, then we could never run a war effectively..yup, decisions go bad but not as bad as a clutter of individual random decisions.

Jahnvi – whew! thanks..that felt better…guess was just using the cathratic utilities of my blog

HPP – Sounds like an interesting paper. I would like a copy of that, if you have it. Eventually all the things can be explained in an economic (rational) way but then at the same time, some decisions like flinging yourself atop a grenade to save your mates beats all explanations..its the missing link.

Kiran – Whoa! you sound more incensed about the war than me to even find fault with the soldiers…you would never win the US presidency :)

By: Kiran

Kiran — Mon, 20 Dec 2004 17:08:35 +0000

Absolutely nothing wrong with the remark buddy – I am surprised why you are even apologetic about it. We are all entitled to our opinions.

I sometimes wonder for example, as to what will happen to our world, if someone does not gather their guts and make up their minds to fight the menace that has given rise to 200,000 insurgents in that poor country.

By: HPP

HPP — Mon, 20 Dec 2004 15:35:24 +0000

Soldiers go to war to die? Reminds me of a paper I read long back â€“ author was a Friedman (not Milton or Thomas) â€“ game theory applied to war.
Part of the argument was thus. A soldierâ€™s main objective is to survive the war. The easiest way to do so is to desert during battle. So the top guns devise methods to prevent that. (1) Desertion ensures a shooting squad â€“ so the soldier weighs cost of fighting (Probability of getting killed) vs cost of desertion (prob of getting caught), and might want to stay on. The ancient practise of uniforms was also designed, partly, to detect desertion. (2) Brainwashing and bonding. So incentive is affection/love for teammates/country/cause/whatever. The extreme was in an assassin sect in Persia, where homosexual partners were paired up as attack teams â€“ you donâ€™t desert your lover.
The paper also argued that there never was the romantic version of a cavalry regiment charging into an infantry battalion â€“ one team would balk at the last minute and either veer off (cavalry) or break ranks (infantry).
Brilliant paper but I have lost it, its references, and google doesnâ€™t help. Older than 1993 when I read this.

Sorry – comment turned out longer than I wanted it to be.

By: Jahnvi

Jahnvi — Mon, 20 Dec 2004 14:32:43 +0000

Hey, all of us make such insensitive, quite-unlike-your-nature statements once in a while. The difference lies in how you feel after that. Do you gloat over it or does it hurt? As long as you feel the prick of conscience, as long as you make an effort to avoid repeating such mistakes, you are on the right track. So no worries about the karmic cycle for this one. :))

By: :-)

:-) — Mon, 20 Dec 2004 10:18:35 +0000

Kind of agree and disagree with Heretic.

Usually invading forces end up looting, raping, killing and destroying. We cant go on assuming that the soldier is selfless and ready to give out his life for the country. It is a job one takes upon willingly for some truly selfish motives (salary, career etc) knowing fully in advance about the risks involved.

At the same time, a soldier is not entitled an opinion. He HAS to execute as per the orders. It its loot, then it is looting. If its kill, then it is killing. I think ‘A Few Good Men’ captured a soldier’s dilemma very well.

Heretic dude, please help me in unplugging my cable.

By: Heretic

Heretic — Mon, 20 Dec 2004 09:29:21 +0000

Balls mate! Take the inverse of your comment, and try looking at it. We’ve heard similar rhetoric through the ages. The buggering Germans used it as an excuse to massacre over 12 million innocents. Not a single German soldier ever raised his voice against those heinious crimes.

The excuse? We were just following our orders, and that is what good soldiers do! Balls, I say. No way that a soldier can justify killing innocents by passing the blame on to the decision-makers. Somehow… we tend to sympathize with the soldiers who’ve chosen to take on that career. Remember, it is always a decision that one made.

My Point?
Would the remark have been worse if you said “They’re all off to kill those innocents?” A good half of America (Canada and Mexico included) [and more than twice that number around the world] would agree with that statement!

Now, please come over and help me get this largish foot out of my largish mouth. :)

By: Seema

Seema — Mon, 20 Dec 2004 09:19:34 +0000

In itself, the remark sounds insensitive. But that is was made almost involuntarily due to the anger you felt towards the higher powers, excuses it. This whole war is going nowhere. God alone know how it will end.

By: :-)

:-) — Mon, 20 Dec 2004 09:11:36 +0000

Dont kill yourself dude. That was just a remark. You can always say sorry and forget about it.

When was the last time a war was justified? Never,I guess.

People talk about Ebola, Aids and stuff. But the deadliest virus that kept on killing humans is this organized killing called war.

It is amazing to see this war thing survived till date.

What a waste.