Konrad Kellen - A listener

[Indofred]

BBC News - Viewpoint: Could one man have shortened the Vietnam War?

What I invite you to do is, click on the link and CAREFULLY read the piece about Kellen.
Katzenellenbogen (His full, Jewish name) was a man without bias, or at least the ability to see through bias and form opinions and ideas based on reality.

According to what I see in the article, it seems he was ignored because the people in power held strong biases and based all their ideas on the course of the Vietnam war on those biased, flawed ideas.

This thread has nothing to do with the Vietnam war as such but a lot to do with your ability to reason and ignore your own biases in order to come up with a reasonable argument based on what is actually there; not what you'd like to be there or how you think it really is because you want it to be like that.

The question is - can you?

I believe I have that ability but I see very few posters on forums who argue without extreme bias.

Would forums (Internet and parliaments) be better places if we didn't argue on party lines or base policy on what we think is best for us or our interest group?
would the world be a better place and would governments do a better job?

If so, why do we always seem to base everything on political/religious/social bent rather than do what is best?

 

[sealadaigh]

BBC News - Viewpoint: Could one man have shortened the Vietnam War?

What I invite you to do is, click on the link and CAREFULLY read the piece about Kellen.
Katzenellenbogen (His full, Jewish name) was a man without bias, or at least the ability to see through bias and form opinions and ideas based on reality.

According to what I see in the article, it seems he was ignored because the people in power held strong biases and based all their ideas on the course of the Vietnam war on those biased, flawed ideas.

This thread has nothing to do with the Vietnam war as such but a lot to do with your ability to reason and ignore your own biases in order to come up with a reasonable argument based on what is actually there; not what you'd like to be there or how you think it really is because you want it to be like that.

The question is - can you?

I believe I have that ability but I see very few posters on forums who argue without extreme bias.

Would forums (Internet and parliaments) be better places if we didn't argue on party lines or base policy on what we think is best for us or our interest group?
would the world be a better place and would governments do a better job?

If so, why do we always seem to base everything on political/religious/social bent rather than do what is best?

it is complicated because many people speak out on subjects to which they are emotionally attached.

perhaps a good way to determine bias is to have a person who feels someway about a particular incident to express how they feel in more general terms, or ask if they would like to be treated that way.

they also judge people by their own particular position in life or their own cultural values without even trying to understand that other peoples have a diferent perception of the world.

me, well, i also try to look for a consistancy of thought...but i am pretty much always in trouble anyway.

vietnam? way too much death for me. i grew up in france before i came here. my friend's fathers...

 

[Indofred]

As I said - I'm not so much interested in Vietnam as such - more the reasons the US got it so wrong.
In this case, I believe ideals got in the way of reality and caused a lot of problems, death and destruction.
As I see it, Kellen was ignored because of the ideal about the US forces being all powerful and an easy win was assured.
I further believe, if Kellen had been listened to, the course of other wars would have been different as well. As you probably know, the forces in Afghanistan are now looking for talks with the Taliban.
Had Kellen been listened to all those years ago; American policy in Afghanistan would probably have been different and a lot less people would have died.
This, in my opinion, is a lesson we need to learn from what should have been history.

 

[editec]

People invest in their opinions based on their presuppositions, prejudices biases and conceits.

That is why most of us believe what we want to believe and we disregard the rest.

Some of us try NOT to do that, but its difficult to see past our own prejudices.

Bottom line?

It's damned hard to be objective.

Partisans, of course, don't even try.

 

[editec]

As I said - I'm not so much interested in Vietnam as such - more the reasons the US got it so wrong.
In this case, I believe ideals got in the way of reality and caused a lot of problems, death and destruction.
As I see it, Kellen was ignored because of the ideal about the US forces being all powerful and an easy win was assured.
I further believe, if Kellen had been listened to, the course of other wars would have been different as well. As you probably know, the forces in Afghanistan are now looking for talks with the Taliban.
Had Kellen been listened to all those years ago; American policy in Afghanistan would probably have been different and a lot less people would have died.
This, in my opinion, is a lesson we need to learn from what should have been history.

The USA got it wrong because so many industrialists made so much money getting it wrong.

There were plenty of knowledgeable people (including the CIA) that warned the USA not to get involved in that stupid assed civil war.

 

[whitehall]

Opinions are like ass holes. Everyone has one and everyone had one back then. Why the British news agency assumes that America should have listened to an obscure analyst back then is anybody's guess. You would think that someone who fought in WW2 would have been familiar with the tactic of bombing civilians until the will of the government was broken. Ironically the V.C. were defeated finally at the Tet battle but our own news media called it a "stalemate" which caused LBJ to throw in the towel and give the V.C new energy.

 

[sealadaigh]

As I said - I'm not so much interested in Vietnam as such - more the reasons the US got it so wrong.
In this case, I believe ideals got in the way of reality and caused a lot of problems, death and destruction.
As I see it, Kellen was ignored because of the ideal about the US forces being all powerful and an easy win was assured.
I further believe, if Kellen had been listened to, the course of other wars would have been different as well. As you probably know, the forces in Afghanistan are now looking for talks with the Taliban.
Had Kellen been listened to all those years ago; American policy in Afghanistan would probably have been different and a lot less people would have died.
This, in my opinion, is a lesson we need to learn from what should have been history.

The USA got it wrong because so many industrialists made so much money getting it wrong.

There were plenty of knowledgeable people (including the CIA) that warned the USA not to get involved in that stupid assed civil war.

i knew a lot of high ranking military (army) officers who were opposed to that war not only in the way it was conducted but also on principle. many of them were associated or aquanted with the french military or with the situation and difficulties of the USA pursuing it.

i served and i learned. i think a lot of us saw iraq and afghanistan for the sinkholes they have become. i knew we were in trouble when pres bush said "crusade".

we will pull out and we won't be back in the mideast for a long time.

 

[FA_Q2]

As I said - I'm not so much interested in Vietnam as such - more the reasons the US got it so wrong.
In this case, I believe ideals got in the way of reality and caused a lot of problems, death and destruction.
As I see it, Kellen was ignored because of the ideal about the US forces being all powerful and an easy win was assured.
I further believe, if Kellen had been listened to, the course of other wars would have been different as well. As you probably know, the forces in Afghanistan are now looking for talks with the Taliban.
Had Kellen been listened to all those years ago; American policy in Afghanistan would probably have been different and a lot less people would have died.
This, in my opinion, is a lesson we need to learn from what should have been history.

The USA got it wrong because so many industrialists made so much money getting it wrong.

There were plenty of knowledgeable people (including the CIA) that warned the USA not to get involved in that stupid assed civil war.

i knew a lot of high ranking military (army) officers who were opposed to that war not only in the way it was conducted but also on principle. many of them were associated or aquanted with the french military or with the situation and difficulties of the USA pursuing it.

i served and i learned. i think a lot of us saw iraq and afghanistan for the sinkholes they have become. i knew we were in trouble when pres bush said "crusade".

we will pull out and we won't be back in the mideast for a long time.

It has been awhile since we fought a ‘war.’ Now we try nation building. Granted, we learned in WW1+2 that simply obliterating a nation is NOT a good way to conduct business – it bites you in the ass in the end – BUT we are not even fighting properly anymore. You cannot fight a war with the slogan ‘hearts and minds’ and expect to win anything, that is insane. War is for one thing and one thing only – slaughter. It would do the American people wonders to understand that simple yet profound concept. Not only because we would ‘win’ the wars we fight either. The REAL and more important effect would be that people would not be in such a damn hurry to get into a war in the first place.

 

[FA_Q2]

Opinions are like ass holes. Everyone has one and everyone had one back then. Why the British news agency assumes that America should have listened to an obscure analyst back then is anybody's guess. You would think that someone who fought in WW2 would have been familiar with the tactic of bombing civilians until the will of the government was broken. Ironically the V.C. were defeated finally at the Tet battle but our own news media called it a "stalemate" which caused LBJ to throw in the towel and give the V.C new energy.

Because he was right, duh.

Hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20. I don’t really think that they are saying that not listening was a stupid bungle that should not have happened. I read it as we made a terrible mistake no matter how unlikely that it was we would have actually made the ‘correct’ decision there.

 

[Survivalist]

As I said - I'm not so much interested in Vietnam as such - more the reasons the US got it so wrong.
In this case, I believe ideals got in the way of reality and caused a lot of problems, death and destruction.
As I see it, Kellen was ignored because of the ideal about the US forces being all powerful and an easy win was assured.
I further believe, if Kellen had been listened to, the course of other wars would have been different as well. As you probably know, the forces in Afghanistan are now looking for talks with the Taliban.
Had Kellen been listened to all those years ago; American policy in Afghanistan would probably have been different and a lot less people would have died.
This, in my opinion, is a lesson we need to learn from what should have been history.

I think the world community should treat the Taliban as equals....but the Taliban needs to play by the same rules first.

First the Taliban needs to sign the Genvea Convention. All their fighters need to be in uniforms. They should all have rank and serial numbers. They must obey the rules of conflict and not have their terrorists, excuse me, freedom fighters, hiding under schools and in civilian areas.

Then the Taliban can have other reforms like having a system basic justice with trials and courts before the behead their enemies, or torture them.

They should also not use land mines or IED's that are a big no-no.

 

[Derideo_Te]

As I said - I'm not so much interested in Vietnam as such - more the reasons the US got it so wrong.
In this case, I believe ideals got in the way of reality and caused a lot of problems, death and destruction.
As I see it, Kellen was ignored because of the ideal about the US forces being all powerful and an easy win was assured.
I further believe, if Kellen had been listened to, the course of other wars would have been different as well. As you probably know, the forces in Afghanistan are now looking for talks with the Taliban.
Had Kellen been listened to all those years ago; American policy in Afghanistan would probably have been different and a lot less people would have died.
This, in my opinion, is a lesson we need to learn from what should have been history.

Anyone with a knowledge of history knows that the Afghans had already beaten 2 superpowers before the US got involved.

There is a game that they play that involves a stuffed animal carcass and it is played by opposing tribes on horseback and it goes on for several days. In the end it doesn't matter who has the carcass. What really matter is if the warlord who hosted the games was strong enough to keep all of the other tribes from killing each other during the games. That is how respect is earned in Afghanistan.

The moral of that story is that no outside power is strong enough to keep the Afghans from killing each other. Therefore they don't deserve any respect and are subject to being killed just like everyone else.

This was already known about the Afghan culture before there was any invasion. However the revenge motive to "get the 9/11 terrorists" pushed all thought of an exit strategy off the table. No one believed that a bunch of 3rd world tribesmen would ever pose a serious threat to the might of the US military. And yet they defeated the soviet military which was at least as well trained and equipped.

Kellen is right that no one listens because in the rush to war the blood is up and the emotions are in charge.

 

[Indofred]

I think the world community should treat the Taliban as equals....but the Taliban needs to play by the same rules first.

First the Taliban needs to sign the Genvea Convention. All their fighters need to be in uniforms. They should all have rank and serial numbers. They must obey the rules of conflict and not have their terrorists, excuse me, freedom fighters, hiding under schools and in civilian areas.

Then the Taliban can have other reforms like having a system basic justice with trials and courts before the behead their enemies, or torture them.

They should also not use land mines or IED's that are a big no-no.

There goes idealism.
I think we have to be realistic in two ways.
a - The Taliban aren't going to do any of that and we have to realise, anyone so fanatical isn't going to obey any rules as they consider their own rules above any and every other law.
b - The forces opposing the Taliban have and continue to use tactics that ignore international law so none of them can claim moral high ground.

Regardless of your opinion of the Taliban (Mine is very much against their stupidity), America, Britain and others are the invading force and you have to realise that will bring support for the extreme groups who can and do claim their cause is to eject an invading force.

However, the problem was never the invasion, as with Iraq, it was the total lack of understanding what would happen after it.

No one bothered to seek objective advice, instead taking the preference for the 'mighty America, John Wayne, will defeat all' option.

A Kellen could have saved so many people if only governments had tried to seek one out.

 

[whitehall]

Opinions are like ass holes. Everyone has one and everyone had one back then. Why the British news agency assumes that America should have listened to an obscure analyst back then is anybody's guess. You would think that someone who fought in WW2 would have been familiar with the tactic of bombing civilians until the will of the government was broken. Ironically the V.C. were defeated finally at the Tet battle but our own news media called it a "stalemate" which caused LBJ to throw in the towel and give the V.C new energy.

Because he was right, duh.

Hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20. I don’t really think that they are saying that not listening was a stupid bungle that should not have happened. I read it as we made a terrible mistake no matter how unlikely that it was we would have actually made the ‘correct’ decision there.

He was not only wrong but he was a hypocrite about it. If chicken shit LBJ did the right thing and had taken advantage of the Tet victory and freed the Vietnamese people it would have avoided the killing fields that resulted from the democrat party playing CYA while abandoning people we promised to help. What the democrat majority in congress did to the loyal Vietnamese was criminal and morally disgraceful. Are we going to get a bunch of "I told you so's" from the Brits about the conflict in Vietnam when they would be speaking in German right now if it wasn't for the US Military?