Live TV mistakes are one thing. No one is denying that you *heard* the claim.
But the claim isn't on any news web site.
Posted on 07/13/2006 2:32:28 PM PDT by RDTF
more to follow
"What happens if the hostages show up on Iranian TV or Al-Jazeera?"
Kaboom.
Possibly, but it could be more than that.
IMO, if Israel does not make a major dent in Syria, then it will be back to business as usual.
I hear that the Nutwad in Charge of Iran has said that if Israel attacks Syria, that would be a declaration of war against the "Islamic world". Well, the "islamic world" as far as I know has not appointed the NIC as spokesman for the "Islamic world".
Go IDF, take them out, because sooner or later it will have to happen.
It wasn't a "typo on a news ticker." They actually said it out loud and then discussed it. I saw it as well. Reaction to and discussion of this very critical news isn't "hyperventilating."
Your skepticism is valid, and at this time this news appears to be unconfirmed, however.
We're all on the same side here, and tensions are high. This is not a contest of who is stupid or should be embarrassed, etc.
But of course that means nothing because nobody has it on their website yet.
I hope the story is false. However, you'll look far more foolish if this report is accurate than any of the people who believed in the report that they actually saw. It is smart to be skeptical but you don't need to be an ass about it.
Live TV mistakes are one thing. No one is denying that you *heard* the claim.
But the claim isn't on any news web site.
Thanks. Told you so.
He was but I thought it looked too busy.
Sort of like the mid east news the last few days.
Its impossible to keep up with it all.
God Bless Israel.
Thank You.
"2 new strikes in Gaza, per Fox/S Smith"
Just heard that, too...on Sirius 131...simulcast of FNC.
| Player A | Cooperate | Defect | |
| Player B | Cooperate | 100,100 | 50,50 |
| Defect | 20,20 | 150,5 |
In this case, Player B has a dominant strategy, namely cooperate. B always does worse if he defects. Knowing this, and assuming that Player B is rational, Player A's best strategy is cooperate, and both Player A and Player B will receive the 100 payoff.
But suppose B is irrational. Suppose B chooses defect. There is absolutely no sane reason for him to do this; he can only lose and he can never gain. But he's irrational, so he does it anyway. Now A does worse by cooperating rather than defecting. B does even worse still, but if B makes the irrational choice, A is better off using a different strategy.
My point is that you must take your opponent's rationality into account when deciding strategy, and you cannot assume that the same strategy will work against an irrational opponent than a rational one. Perversely, oftentimes an irrational opponent has the advantage over a rational one. Here's another game, a famous one, which illustrates the principle nicely:
| Player A | Cooperate | Defect | |
| Player B | Cooperate | 50,50 | 100,-50 |
| Defect | -50,100 | -5000,-5000 |
This game is commonly known as "chicken", and the optimal strategy is to defect if you believe your opponent will cooperate and vice versa. The canonical example is of two drivers playing a game where they rush each other head on. The cooperative strategy is swerve, while defection is don't swerve. If one swerves and the other doesn't, the non-swerver wins, and the swerver loses face. But if neither swerves, there's a fatal head-on collision, which is the worst outcome for everybody, worse by far than being a humiliated swerver.
It has many real-world applications, of which nuclear brinksmanship is probably the most relevant. Two nuclear powers are escalating tensions over an issue. If one of them backs down, the other one gains. But if neither backs down, the result is nuclear war, which is the worst possible outcome for everybody.
If in chicken you become convinced, utterly convinced, that your opponent will defect, you have no choice but to cooperate, because mutual defection is far worse than unilateral cooperation. Because of this, it's the irrational player who has the advantage. If, for example, one of the drivers in the speeding cars ostentatiously throws his steering wheel out the window, his opponent knows that he must swerve, or there will be a collision. In practical terms, this has application as well. Nixon's staff was known to do their best to spread the impression among Soviets that he was crazy, that he hated them with a passion and that he'd really push the button. Fearing the credibility of an opponent's defection, the Soviets were forced to cooperate.
Boy, this turned out to be a lot longer than I wanted it to be.
Correct. It means nothing if they won't print it.
"IMO, if Israel does not make a major dent in Syria, then it will be back to business as usual."
I agree with you and yes, Iran's demented leader threatened any attacker who goes after Syria.
Well, does it matter in any case? Even if they didn't push the button, Iran is still calling the shots. Not to mention supplying the money and ammo.
They have been shooting missiles from Gaza for a couple days....it is the second front...
Al Aqsa Matyrs Brigade said they were sending in 100 suicide bombers.....lets hope that is just bluster.
"Just heard it on Fox Radio... "fired by Iranian Guard working with Hezbollah."
But of course that means nothing because nobody has it on their website yet."
Thanks for your help.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.