Triangulating the IWR:

[patrice]

I'm not a games theorist, so I'm not sure I have all of the possible combinations of possible factors below and I have no idea how to go about weighting them, but it goes something like this, doesn't it?:

One of the following sets of conditions describes any given individual making the decision about how to vote on the IWR:

They believed the lies.

They did not believe the lies, thought the UN gambit was legit, thought the UN gambit would work, and there would be no war.

They did not believe the lies, thought the UN gambit was legit, thought the UN gambit would not work, and there would be a war that would succeed in __________.

They did not believe the lies, thought the UN gambit was legit, thought the UN gambit would not work, there would be a war that would not succeed in __________, and that was okay because __________.

They did not believe the lies, thought the UN gambit was phony, thought the UN gambit might work anyway, and there would be no war.

They did not believe the lies, thought the UN gambit was phony, thought the UN gambit would not work, but there would be no war.

They did not believe the lies, thought the UN gambit was phony, thought the UN gambit would not work, and there would be a war that would succeed in _________________.

They did not believe the lies, thought the UN Gambit was phony, thought the UN gambit would not work, there would be a war that would not succeed in __________, and that was okay because ___________.

[pocoloco]

1. It ain't that complicated.

Choose life or death!

[Skidmore]

2. It is as simple as that.

Endless war or no. Send someone to die or end this mess.

Trying to descry this war in nuanced language to make it sound good without addressing the immorality of it is supporting it.

[patrice]

3. That's may be true for most people.

But politicians triangulate in order to calculate the greatest "benefit", whatever that is. And we can't hold them accountable in any EFFECTIVE way if we don't recognize what they are doing.