Dyanov wrote:

Don't you mean Sunni disposition?

Dirka Dirka Dirka Muhammad Jihad

Eric S. wrote:
Are you guys glad we spent $40 billion to invade and occupy Iraq, or would that money be better spent here in America?

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Glad???  I am never Glad when we go to war.  That is trying to get me to oversimplify something that is very complicated.  So judging success or failure on Body Count alone.

Eric, I expect more.  You are not this simple.  Neither is this issue.

PS...whe have spent close to 200 billion...not 40.

As to your question of where it would be better spent.  It depends on your point of view.  America uses 300,000,000 gallons of gasoline a day.  PER DAY.  At $5 or $6 a gallon, how long till the pain threshold meets the savings?

Or, we spent billions on containing Saddam Hussien.  How long till that toll reaches the savings?

Or, you can have a protectionist view.  Mind our own business.  That is short sighted and a very pollyanna.

bencook2 wrote:

Speaking of "read(ing) a recent estimate" here are two links that bolster my point.
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.2 … detail.asp

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.2 … detail.asp  (this one actually touches on what you are talking about.)

I do admire you for trying to base your arguments on the best available knowledge. Generally politics is a subject that every one thinks that they can speak intelligently about, because they live in a political system. I studied international relations and the Middle East with some of the best known people in the field. And for that reason I am not ready to come to any easy and quick conclusions about Iraq. Thinking about the Iraq war intelligently is not easy.
However, I think the war is so big that it cannot be thought about in 1 step.
The war needs to be broken down into many parts and many questions.

Perhaps I will post the questions later on when I have more time.

Dyanov wrote:

I do admire you for trying to base your arguments on the best available knowledge. Generally politics is a subject that every one thinks that they can speak intelligently about, because they live in a political system. I studied international relations and the Middle East with some of the best known people in the field. And for that reason I am not ready to come to any easy and quick conclusions about Iraq. Thinking about the Iraq war intelligently is not easy.
However, I think the war is so big that it cannot be thought about in 1 step.
The war needs to be broken down into many parts and many questions.

Perhaps I will post the questions later on when I have more time.

I agree, very complicated.  It is like trying to answer the question "what is terrorism?"  Or "why are people terrorists?"  There are many different "right" answers.  None of these answers are heuristics either.  Just too many variables.

I look forward to chatting more.

bencook2 wrote:
I think it's my sunny disposition...

No Ben, it's that you like to dish it out but can't take it in return.

YOU like to label people that disagree with you as "the Left" or "liberals" or the great unread, etc.  I've stopped seriously engaging with you in argument because when you are presented with facts on point that you don't like you dismiss them.  You tried to do that with me in a thread once, calling me out like I'm some dumb shit liberal pinko photographer who gets all their info from Worker's Socialist News.  I called you on it back, that I am an attorney who actually studied international law in the UK as well as Ireland.   

You defend a position that some of us felt indefensible early on before the war even started, and now that it has turned into the economic and humanitarian quagmire that it was projected to become, more people are actively against the Bush/Cheney policy in Iraq.  Just like the anti-war protesters who were labelled as traitors and anti-American for protesting the war, you're going to have to take some heat for an unpopular position.

And quit whining about it for god's sake.

Brian Diaz wrote:
This is so obviously fake!

These statistics are made up!

Who could possibly believe this garbage?  Here are just a few of the lies spread around here:

U.S. Troop Fatalities since March 2003 - 4
U.S. Troops Wounded in Action since March 2003 - 7
Estimates of Iraqi Civilians Killed Since the Start of the War - 9
Iraqi Civilian Killed as a Result of Acts of War since May 2003 - 10
Car Bombs in Iraq (Lethal and Non-Lethal) - 10
Non-Iraqi Civilian Contractors Killed in Iraq - 13
Journalists Killed in Iraq - 14
Iraqis Kidnapped - 16
Foreign Nationals Kidnapped in Iraq since May 2003 - 16
Total Number of Insurgents Detained or Killed  - 17
Iraqi Prison Population - 17
Number of Daily Attacks by Insurgents - 22
American Military Helicopters Downed in Iraq - 23
Number of Registered Cars in Baghdad - 36
Telephone subscribers - 36
Internet subscribers - 36
Tons of Mail Sent by Iraqis - 37

Come on!

I think these numbers may be page numbers for the actual report, especially since several of the numbers are the same for subsequent topics.

bencook2 wrote:
Pathetic.  The most in depth analysis of Iraq you can find...and no one here had mentioned reading it.  Yet I can point out 50 "informed" posts on Iraq in just two threads.   

This is why debating with some of you people is like you bringing a knife to a howitzer fight.  You don't take the time to learn. 

I get picked on because I am not the best debator in the world...and my spelling makes my posts hard to read sometimes...but I fuckin' research the hell out of my positions.  Contrary to what alot of you believe I don't parrot Rush or Fox News.  I get this shit on my own through hours of research.  Some for school, some because of my deeply held responsibility to stay informed.

Shame on you people.  Read it or shut up about Iraq.  You have an opportunity to know more about Iraq in 30 mins of reading than 90% of the people you will meet.

Such language and ignorance.

Informed indeed.

Shame on you sir.

Chu Toi wrote:

Perhaps this spelling error began because there does exist in English a word spelled “allotâ€? which is a verb meaning to apportion or grant. The correct form, with “aâ€? and “lotâ€? separated by a space is perhaps not often encountered in print because good writers usually use other expressions such as “a great deal,â€? “often,â€? etc. If you can’t remember the rule, just remind yourself that just as you wouldn’t write “alittleâ€? you shouldn’t write “alot.â€?

Ciao Bella :-)

Oh my, I think i'm in love!

Toi for president! (and soon please)

KM von Seidl wrote:
No Ben, it's that you like to dish it out but can't take it in return.

YOU like to label people that disagree with you as "the Left" or "liberals" or the great unread, etc.  I've stopped seriously engaging with you in argument because when you are presented with facts on point that you don't like you dismiss them.  You tried to do that with me in a thread once, calling me out like I'm some dumb shit liberal pinko photographer who gets all their info from Worker's Socialist News.  I called you on it back, that I am an attorney who actually studied international law in the UK as well as Ireland.   

You defend a position that some of us felt indefensible early on before the war even started, and now that it has turned into the economic and humanitarian quagmire that it was projected to become, more people are actively against the Bush/Cheney policy in Iraq.  Just like the anti-war protesters who were labelled as traitors and anti-American for protesting the war, you're going to have to take some heat for an unpopular position.

And quit whining about it for god's sake.

" I've stopped seriously engaging with you "

Yet you posted.

" I've stopped seriously engaging with you"

Yet you continued to type.

Now if I could REALLY get you to stop "engaging" me.

Quiet son, the adults are talking.

Your arguments are old, tired and baseless.  I never see you back anything you say up.  You claim Iraq is a quagmire but you don't say by what standard.  You don't say from what perspective.  You might sight one instance that looks horrible out of context...or maybe in context...but you don't allow for a broad perspective.  You don't allow for the fact that I and others might be right.  I admit often on this board that Iraq is a mess.  NO SHIT.  It is a war.  War is messy.  What would impress me is if you really did your homework.  See what I see.  Not fox news casts but the real day in and day out research that comes with my line of study.  I know you don't.  Because I hear you parroting the same tired circular half truths I hear easily debunked by my reading and research.

I don't expect you to understand.  I don't expect you to conceed.  In fact I expect you to dig yourself deeper into the hole you are in.  Making it hard in the end for you to "cop" to the truth.  That is fine.  There is a legion of us out here making a difference...we would like to have you with us...but believe me we are doing just fine without you.

Now, if it is not too much to ask...stop "engaging me".

PS...did you read the link?

Brian Diaz wrote:
Yeah, we've really done a great job over in Iraq--primary school enrollment is just 38!  If you can't keep 40 kids in school, how are you going to build a government?

Occam's razor that.

Diaz for president! (and soon please)

~Krista~ wrote:

Okay, I am sorry, but posting directly against someone repeatedly on a thread that has 2 moderators on it is getting you a day off.

Oh god-I love this woman.

Think she'd have my baby?

Jayson Repko wrote:
If only I could call Bill Maher and have him respond to this post.....

Why waste his time?!

StudioD wrote:

I think these numbers may be page numbers for the actual report, especially since several of the numbers are the same for subsequent topics.

He's aware, lol.

studio L wrote:

Occam's razor that.

Diaz for president! (and soon please)

Thanks!

I do not envy anyone in the Iraqi government.  How difficult must it be when there are 27 political parties and 27 Council Seats in the New Iraqi Legislature?

Isis wrote:

He's aware, lol.

Muwahahaha. I'll take it one step further. Some folks, like our friendly neighborhood Mr. Diaz, choose to take the comedic route when someone gets on their high horse and decides to lecture or patronize them. Humor is a sight better than some of the god awful ad hominem silliness that goes on in these forums.

Just didn't wan't there to be any more confusion. Some of us, like Isis, got it.

bencook2 wrote:

Hall Photo wrote:
peaking of "read(ing) a recent estimate" here are two links that bolster my point.
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.2 … detail.asp

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.2 … detail.asp  (this one actually touches on what you are talking about.)

Interesting stuff, but it still doesn't cover the opportunity costs.  What else could have been done with the money?  I'm starting to think we could have had a reliably better outcome at lower cost, even assuming the (unlikely, it seems to me) reports of Iraq-Al Qaeda links are confirmed and authenticated.  His point that we can't know for sure is well-taken, but as the costs continue to balloon and the future looks less certain, it's looking less and less like a good deal.  Of course, we're committed now, but as somebody who initially supported the invasion, I can't help but feel disappointed with the administration's bungling.

Hall Photo wrote:
Of course, we're committed now, but as somebody who initially supported the invasion, I can't help but feel disappointed with the administration's bungling.

Contrary to popular belief, I too am disappointed.  But that does not mean the cause is lost.

The Art of CIP wrote:
Thanx for the 411 Bencook2  it was a great read...  HOWEVER - you only gave up one report...  Here's a couple of others for cross referencing sake

http://usliberals.about.com/od/homeland … umbers.htm
- This one's from an American source


http://icasualties.org/oif/
-this one's from a British source

http://newssearch.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/sea … y=10&go=go
-This one's British as well (bbc)

Folks don't forget that we're not the only ones losing people in this war...  So to are the other countries that are fighting with us...  This ain't just an American problem...

The "coalition of the willing"....hmmmmm.

I'd say it is more of an Iraqi problem than any one else's...by at least two orders of magnitude.