State of Iraq

[ACPlayer]

How often can you be wrong in a day.

EV is expected value not actual outcome.

We dont hold opposite hopes on the OUTCOME of the war, we (perhaps) hold opposite views on the justification, the thinking and the reasoning of going to war in the first place.

Where we are at right now, we have invested and invested (will be investing more) and have seen no benefit to date and no benefit CLEARLY insight. We have hope -- how ofter do you make a play based on hope? how ofter do you call based on hope? how many people go broke chasing hope?

[BCPVP]

Nickyq, I'm not arguing that the sanctions didn't hurt Iraq's infrastructure. They cleary did. My argument is that Saddam did nothing after the first Gulf War to maintain wastewater treatment facilities.

I'd also point out that you aren't going to find an impartial source that has as much info and data about the nuts and bolts of the reconstruction.

[jaxmike]

I did not accuse you of doing any such thing. I am going to repost what I wrote here...

You wrote...
[ QUOTE ]
Anytime the discussion of Iraq comes up the blame is point to the UN and Saddam or the Democrats or the Europeans or the Arab culture or the sex habits of butterflys rather than accept responsibility for the mess.

[/ QUOTE ]

My understanding of what you wrote here was that the current administration is trying to blame others for, what you call, the "mess" in Iraq. My response follows...

[ QUOTE ]
How can you accept full responsibility when its clear that for years, the agenda that you have been pushing, one backed by international "agreement", was being usurped?

[/ QUOTE ]

Notice that the "you" that I am talking about here is the current administration, not you personally.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I can and I did and I will.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't because there is no way to accurately measure the EV.

[ QUOTE ]
The EV of going to war was negaitve before the war, during the war and after.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please provide your statistical proof. You have none, and cannot create any.

[ QUOTE ]
We have received no where near the benefit that was described to us before the war or any ancillary secondary benefit as a result of the war.

[/ QUOTE ]

This means nothing to your argument. You claimed that going to war was a negative EV move (in a nutshell). You cannot make this claim, because you have no basis to do so.

[ QUOTE ]
Even dogma prone thickheads now can only talk about the freedom to the Iraqi as the benefit that has accrued as a result.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you put a value on that?

[ QUOTE ]
The argument is essnetially over except for those who are unable to admit that their thinking was wrong and that is YOU.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it is you that is being closed minded. You do not understand the scope of what has happened or what will happen. I am not saying that I can either, but I can assure you that you do not understand all the implications of what has transpired. You are mired in a defeatest and negative ideology at least in regards to this issue. The argument is over for you because you believe you are right, despite a total and utter lack of evidence to prove your point. Only time will tell the true value of the war (or lack thereof). For someone who preached (I believe in this thread) that he was the most open minded poster on this forum, I find this an incredible hypocracy.

[MMMMMM]

The scenario is far too complex to be able to calculate EV with any degree of even rough accuracy. Hence a wait-and-see approach is necessary.

There are encouraging signs from Afghanistan, Libya, Iran and yes, even Iraq, that the winds of change that are blowing may be more than mere temporary breezes.

You are all too quick to throw in the towel, I think. Poker is not the only game that is counted in the long run.

[ACPlayer]

Prior to any investment there should be a clear case presented on the expected return on that investment. If the USA makes this investment there must be a return to the USA. A clear case was presented on the expected return. That particular case has been discredited and now we have been presented with a new case to wit the "spread of democracy".

Now, instead of realizing that the initiam investment was a poor one -- becuase that would admit a mistake was made which is political suicide -- and putting in place a plan to cut the losses anbd/or pass the losses on to other countries via the UN, this administration callously continues to risk our boys and girls in Iraq and expending dollars that could be used to make America more secure -- see for example the funding request for better screening equipment at the airports that the govt is trying to pass to the airports/airlines.

Poker and decisions of war are analogous in that tough decisions are made with incopmplete information and in each case we get a chance to conitinually evaluate whether we should continue with the investment or move on. Just as in Poker we should be prepared to look back to the quality of the initial decisions and evaluate that rather than continue to live on Hope -- that is the tactic of the FISH.

We should have moved on, we did not -- we should now plan to move on and leave Iraq to evolve as it does under international auspices.

[MMMMMM]

Well, I disagree with your assessment of Iraq, and with your assessment of the merits or wisdom of the initial plan.

Time will tell who is right.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course EVIL is relative to the perspective of the person offering the opinion - a truism you find hard to accept as you only recognize your perspective and the underlying assumptions as correct.

The reasons for the insurgency are understandable. The tactics are abhorrent but not surprising and entirely predictable. In fact on this forum it was pointed out a couple of years ago that Iraq was not ready for Democracy to be imposed from outside and that there would be infighting between the ethnic groups.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you may be misunderstanding why I call the insurgents evil.

It is not because I view their side as "wrong" (although I do). It is rather because they are targeting and killing ANYONE they can, basically. They are killing their own countrymen, not just American soldiers; not even just government/security Iraqis, either: they are deliberately killing innocent civilian Iraqis as well. In short, they are no better than terrorists.

Below is what I wrote; you can see that this fits with the above:

M: "Also, if it weren't for the EVIL INSURGENTS, the country might have been rebuilt by now. But those ASSHOLES would rather keep blowing things up, and keep murdering Iraqis and Americans, and keep Americans busy fighting, than help with the rebuilding themselves."

It is primarily their tactics to which I am objecting. The fact that they have adopted terrorist/nihilistic tactics is what makes them evil. If they were targeting only political leaders/soldiers of the other side, I would disagree with their view, and think them rather stupid for continuing to fight, but I would not think them evil. However adopting terrorist tactics crosses the moral line in a very deep way which I believe is worthy of the appellation "evil". Even more so for the al-Qaeda insurgents in Iraq who have made it their business to terrorize and behead uninvolved innocent persons. If that isn't "evil", then nothing is.

[vulturesrow]

MMMMMM,

Dont you get you numbskull, evil is relative! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[ACPlayer]

There is no doubt that the practice of targetting civilians is objectionable whether by the insurgents (for want of a more accurate word) or the suicide bombers etc.

However, it is also equally objectionable for armies to wipe out cities (Falluja) or mete out collective punishment (WB/Gaza).


It is primarily their tactics to which I am objecting.

I am glad that your are making their tactics your primary objection (shows some evolution in your thinking [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ) and not the reasons or goals.

Lastly to truly understand why they are targetting civilians it is because the region is strife with ethnic tensions for centuries. The Shia distrust the Sunni and vis-a-versa. To the Sunni who sees their survival as the goal the Shia is a valid target. Note the level of ethnic struggle just to choose the PM and President in the recent "election".

Unfortunately for the Iraqi their country has now been invaded by the AQ who have made it their battleground. They can (and do) thank America for this latest import.