Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

spindler · Oct 10, 2006, 08:03 AM

1/2 of the problem in forming an army in Iraq is that it is infiltrated by people who are loyal outside militias. Instead of protecting against terrorists, many in the army are committing crimes.

It seems like there is a really easy way to tell who has good intentions and who doesnt: lie detector tests. How accurate are they? You could very easily ask people the following questions:

"Are you involved in any outside military group?"

"Are you hoping for a democratic government in Iraq or are you looking for one group to dominate the other?"

etc. It doesn't seem like it should be such a hard problem to solve.

marden · Oct 10, 2006, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by spindler

1/2 of the problem in forming an army in Iraq is that it is infiltrated by people who are loyal outside militias. Instead of protecting against terrorists, many in the army are committing crimes.

It seems like there is a really easy way to tell who has good intentions and who doesnt: lie detector tests. How accurate are they? You could very easily ask people the following questions:

"Are you involved in any outside military group?"

"Are you hoping for a democratic government in Iraq or are you looking for one group to dominate the other?"

etc. It doesn't seem like it should be such a hard problem to solve.

I think the idea, or something like it, should be tested and be given a chance to make a difference.

D. S. Troyer · Oct 10, 2006, 03:36 PM

They don't even work here.

Pendergast · Oct 10, 2006, 04:15 PM

I'd like to have detector tests used on some Republicans and Democrats first.

Taliesin · Oct 11, 2006, 04:21 AM

Originally Posted by Pendergast

I'd like to have detector tests used on some Republicans and Democrats first.

Exactly my idea, you beat me to it. A truth-searching commission doing this with Bush junior, Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld... and some Pentagon-blokes, regarding 9/11 and Iraq, wow, that would be so sensational-fantastic, but for that these detectors have to be perfectly capable of differencing between lies and truths, which I don't think they can reliably do.

Taliesin

Naplander · Oct 11, 2006, 06:06 AM

Waterboarding is much more effective!

Kevin · Oct 11, 2006, 06:16 AM

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Exactly my idea, you beat me to it. A truth-searching commission doing this with Bush junior, Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld... and some Pentagon-blokes, regarding 9/11 and Iraq, wow, that would be so sensational-fantastic, but for that these detectors have to be perfectly capable of differencing between lies and truths, which I don't think they can reliably do.

Taliesin

He said AND Democrat.

BTW I don't think such a test would be in favor of EITHER side.

subego · Oct 13, 2006, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

He said AND Democrat.

Instead of noting that he isn't as concerned with his own party, why don't you share and tell what you would ask the Democrats?

Questions about the war would be most relevant, of course.

Kevin · Oct 13, 2006, 02:58 PM

subedo is this a new thing you are doing? Going around attempting to tell me questions I should ask?

It's coming off a bit creepy.

subego · Oct 13, 2006, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

subedo is this a new thing you are doing? Going around attempting to tell me questions I should ask?

No.

I politely asked you to address the topic in the other thread. While this fits the literal definition of "telling you the questions you should ask", I would say this is fairly standard procedure in a debate. I must also note that I specifically asked you not to stop asking whatever questions you wanted, only address mine in addition.

When you impatiently and insultingly attacked my motives I felt compelled to point this out as a better demonstration of my motives. For some reason you divined this was an attempt to "tell you questions you should ask", rather than a defense to your unfair attack.

So, as far as I'm concerned, this is the only real time where I have asked you to provide a certain type of question, and frankly, I thought you might have fun doing it.

More importantly however, I asked you because your original comment lacked any meaningful content, and rather than berate you for it I felt it would be more constructive to prompt you to provide such.

Originally Posted by Kevin

It's coming off a bit creepy.

Whatever.

ghporter · Oct 13, 2006, 06:40 PM

There is no external method-polygraph, drugs, hypnotism, etc.-to verify the truth of what a person says. In some cases the person may BELIEVE a false statement he/she makes to be true, even though he/she is in possession of the proper facts to rebut his/her own mistaken belief.

The thing you need to think about is WATCHING the Iraqi army and police, not just asking them questions. And doing a good background check, while insanely hard there, would be a good first step for ALL applicants-and everyone who's already part of the army and police too.