Comments on: Who Won in Iraq? http://www.radioopensource.org/who-won-in-iraq/ Christopher Lydon in conversation on arts, ideas and politics Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:52:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: ramesh http://www.radioopensource.org/who-won-in-iraq/#comment-84928 ramesh Mon, 05 Mar 2007 17:18:34 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/?p=944#comment-84928 I visited this site it gives excellent information about Insurance and for more details on Medical Insurance, more permanent health coverage, you may want to look at another health insurance option, such as an Individual Medical policy. <a href="”http://www.easystm.com”" rel="nofollow">http:// www.easystm.com</a> I visited this site it gives excellent information about Insurance and for more details on Medical Insurance, more permanent health coverage, you may want to look at another health insurance option, such as an Individual Medical policy.

http:// http://www.easystm.com

]]> By: Tom B http://www.radioopensource.org/who-won-in-iraq/#comment-84927 Tom B Mon, 26 Feb 2007 20:40:23 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/?p=944#comment-84927 Just a thought about winning as applied to most 'artificial' games. Chess has an endpoint (checkmate). The computer game Civilization has an endpoint (the year 2050 in most scenarios). Individual lives have endpoints. But what are we to make of games with no agreed-upon endpoint? History can either be seen as a play that always goes into one more act... interminably... or as a game where the score is always mounting, but never totalled. It would be very interesting (and I suspect some science fiction author has already done this) if we were to have a war with a predetermined time limit, an agreed upon set of rules, and a mutually accepted scoring system. At the end of the 'game' everyone could announce the score. United States: 723 -- Iraq: 122 -- Iran: 894. "And our winner of this game is IRAN!" (Sound of cheers in the background fading into an advertisement for a newly developed body soap....). Just a thought about winning as applied to most ‘artificial’ games. Chess has an endpoint (checkmate). The computer game Civilization has an endpoint (the year 2050 in most scenarios). Individual lives have endpoints. But what are we to make of games with no agreed-upon endpoint? History can either be seen as a play that always goes into one more act… interminably… or as a game where the score is always mounting, but never totalled. It would be very interesting (and I suspect some science fiction author has already done this) if we were to have a war with a predetermined time limit, an agreed upon set of rules, and a mutually accepted scoring system. At the end of the ‘game’ everyone could announce the score. United States: 723 — Iraq: 122 — Iran: 894. “And our winner of this game is IRAN!” (Sound of cheers in the background fading into an advertisement for a newly developed body soap….).

]]> By: houstonDave http://www.radioopensource.org/who-won-in-iraq/#comment-84926 houstonDave Mon, 26 Feb 2007 00:23:40 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/?p=944#comment-84926 I'm surprised that no one has pointed out a big winner -- a winner that has tangible winnings to point to, and that is the American Left. The Democratic victories in both houses were fueled in large part by antiwar sentiment, and more liberal candidates suddenly became electable and then elected. If I believed that America would be defined by the Bush Administration for any length of time, I would have emigrated already! Since Reagan, the conservatives have managed to convince the middle that they have a monopoly on everything that is good and holy. With this war (and the response to Hurricane Katrina, and dozens of other outrages), the Bush conservatives have shown themselves to be arrogant, incompetent, corrupt and have a thorough disregard for the Constitution and the lives and well-being of our troops (and of many more citizens, too.) The impeachment of Bush and Cheney would immediately start America's restoration in our own eyes and to those of the rest of the world. If they get to run out the clock, our next Democratic president will have to start that process on January 20, 2009. I sure hope that reinstating science's role in informing policy will be part of that restoration, as well as a greater appreciation of our Constitution. I’m surprised that no one has pointed out a big winner — a winner that has tangible winnings to point to, and that is the American Left. The Democratic victories in both houses were fueled in large part by antiwar sentiment, and more liberal candidates suddenly became electable and then elected.

If I believed that America would be defined by the Bush Administration for any length of time, I would have emigrated already! Since Reagan, the conservatives have managed to convince the middle that they have a monopoly on everything that is good and holy. With this war (and the response to Hurricane Katrina, and dozens of other outrages), the Bush conservatives have shown themselves to be arrogant, incompetent, corrupt and have a thorough disregard for the Constitution and the lives and well-being of our troops (and of many more citizens, too.)

The impeachment of Bush and Cheney would immediately start America’s restoration in our own eyes and to those of the rest of the world. If they get to run out the clock, our next Democratic president will have to start that process on January 20, 2009. I sure hope that reinstating science’s role in informing policy will be part of that restoration, as well as a greater appreciation of our Constitution.

]]> By: pryoung http://www.radioopensource.org/who-won-in-iraq/#comment-84925 pryoung Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:17:28 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/?p=944#comment-84925 Tom B: I would say history shows Le Pen's Front National to have been the main winner in your case study. Tom B:

I would say history shows Le Pen’s Front National to have been the main winner in your case study.

]]> By: Lumière http://www.radioopensource.org/who-won-in-iraq/#comment-84924 Lumière Fri, 23 Feb 2007 21:47:22 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/?p=944#comment-84924 Those questions tie into the discussion on morality - the zeitgeist matters When it is nationalism – go that way, everyone will be better off When it is globalism – go that way, everyone will be better off When the Brits anchored in Manhattan harbor in 1664, the Dutch basically said: we are here to make money, who cares what the flag says That is the way to go… Those questions tie into the discussion on morality – the zeitgeist matters

When it is nationalism – go that way, everyone will be better off

When it is globalism – go that way, everyone will be better off

When the Brits anchored in Manhattan harbor in 1664, the Dutch basically said: we are here to make money, who cares what the flag says

That is the way to go…

]]> By: Tom B http://www.radioopensource.org/who-won-in-iraq/#comment-84923 Tom B Fri, 23 Feb 2007 19:21:49 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/?p=944#comment-84923 Case study: Algeria since 1962. Who won? Who lost? Did the 'pied-noir' who fled Algeria lose when he/she started over in France, a place of relative peace? Did the Algerian peasant who acheived 'independence' win by living under Boumedienne? Did Ben Bella win by becoming the first leader of Algeria, or did he lose by being ousted by falling to Boumedienne? Did the FLN win? Or did the folks who got jobs as engineers with Sonotrach win? Or did the Russians and Chinese who supplied the FLN with weapons win? Did those killed almost instantly in terrorist bombings -- who would have otherwise been tortured over a period of months -- win or lose? And were FLN leaders picked off by jealous rivals inside their own camp winners because they held leadership positions -- or losers because they suffered premature deaths? Winning and losing are evanescent states, and even decades later it's difficult to know whether Algerian independence was a great victory or a great defeat. It's somewhat subjective.... Case study: Algeria since 1962. Who won? Who lost? Did the ‘pied-noir’ who fled Algeria lose when he/she started over in France, a place of relative peace? Did the Algerian peasant who acheived ‘independence’ win by living under Boumedienne? Did Ben Bella win by becoming the first leader of Algeria, or did he lose by being ousted by falling to Boumedienne? Did the FLN win? Or did the folks who got jobs as engineers with Sonotrach win? Or did the Russians and Chinese who supplied the FLN with weapons win? Did those killed almost instantly in terrorist bombings — who would have otherwise been tortured over a period of months — win or lose? And were FLN leaders picked off by jealous rivals inside their own camp winners because they held leadership positions — or losers because they suffered premature deaths? Winning and losing are evanescent states, and even decades later it’s difficult to know whether Algerian independence was a great victory or a great defeat. It’s somewhat subjective….

]]> By: Lumière http://www.radioopensource.org/who-won-in-iraq/#comment-84922 Lumière Fri, 23 Feb 2007 18:25:55 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/?p=944#comment-84922 We pay the trade deficit in cash. China uses the cash to buy our debt. They can sell the debt at anytime in the debt markets. If they want to hold to maturity and get paid, we sell debt to someone else and use the proceeds to pay China. If we can’t sell debt to someone else, we print up cash and pay the Chinese. Here’s the amusing part: The Chinese obviously trust us more than we trust us – they keep taking our IOUs. All part of the greater fool theory…. We pay the trade deficit in cash.

China uses the cash to buy our debt. They can sell the debt at anytime in the debt markets. If they want to hold to maturity and get paid, we sell debt to someone else and use the proceeds to pay China.

If we can’t sell debt to someone else, we print up cash and pay the Chinese.

Here’s the amusing part:

The Chinese obviously trust us more than we trust us – they keep taking our IOUs.

All part of the greater fool theory….

]]> By: loki http://www.radioopensource.org/who-won-in-iraq/#comment-84921 loki Fri, 23 Feb 2007 18:14:22 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/?p=944#comment-84921 China won. We are in hock to China. Now Cheney is firing up his rhetoric against China.(is that like shooting Harry?) China won. We are in hock to China. Now Cheney is firing up his rhetoric against China.(is that like shooting Harry?)

]]> By: Potter http://www.radioopensource.org/who-won-in-iraq/#comment-84920 Potter Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:24:47 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/?p=944#comment-84920 Anent by post above Daniel Levy, not David levy. Sorry. This just in from my blogmeister via Talking Points Memo ( Josh M Marshall): <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/829441.html" rel="nofollow">U.S. hardens line on talks between Jerusalem, Damascus</a> It says: <i>The United States demanded that Israel desist from even exploratory contacts with Syria, of the sort that would test whether Damascus is serious in its declared intentions to hold peace talks with Israel. The American argument is that even "exploratory talks" would be considered a prize in Damascus, whose policy and actions continue to undermine Lebanon's sovereignty and the functioning of its government, while it also continues to stir unrest in Iraq, to the detriment of the U.S. presence there. </i> As the Syrians ask for talks during this time when it is holding better cards ( thanks to the Lebanon and Iraq Wars- nevermind the Hariri thang) they continue to help Hezbollah arm apparently. RC21 is correct however we can see what directions things are going in at least for the next couple of years as the US administration seems to believe it can call the shots. Perhaps the Israeli's will disobey and explore what is after all in their own interest, unless Olmert, like Bush, thinks he can still snatch victory from the jaws of defeat ( in another round). from the article, voices of emboldened Syria: <i>Three Syrian political analysts and politicians were interviewed on national television and denied the report on Syrian arms procurement and testing of ballistic missiles. However, all three emphasized that if there is no progress toward peace with Israel, then it is the "natural right" of Syria to take other types of action in order to liberate the Golan Heights.</i> Muhammed Habesh, a Syrian legislator, in an interview with the Al Arabiya satellite channel, said that "if Israel attempts to do something stupid, it will pay a hefty price for it." Talking Points Memo comments with this question-quote linked from Andrew Sullivan: <i>What's more telling is how unpopular the war is in Britain, and how an entire generation of Brits have now grown up thinking of the United States as a bullying, torturing force for instability in the world. That's not the America I love - but it is the image of America that Bush and Cheney have built for the largest generation of human beings ever to grow up on the planet. In Italy, the government has fallen because there is no longer support for even a minimal presence in Afghanistan, let alone Iraq." This is the critical question, when you consider the aftershocks of what President Bush has wrought over the last 6 years. On the evidence of the last six years, is the US an aggressive, destablizing force on the global stage or a benign, ordering force? Who can give an answer to that question that they're proud of?</i> Anent by post above Daniel Levy, not David levy. Sorry.

This just in from my blogmeister via Talking Points Memo ( Josh M Marshall):

U.S. hardens line on talks between Jerusalem, Damascus

It says: The United States demanded that Israel desist from even exploratory contacts with Syria, of the sort that would test whether Damascus is serious in its declared intentions to hold peace talks with Israel.

The American argument is that even “exploratory talks” would be considered a prize in Damascus, whose policy and actions continue to undermine Lebanon’s sovereignty and the functioning of its government, while it also continues to stir unrest in Iraq, to the detriment of the U.S. presence there.

As the Syrians ask for talks during this time when it is holding better cards ( thanks to the Lebanon and Iraq Wars- nevermind the Hariri thang) they continue to help Hezbollah arm apparently. RC21 is correct however we can see what directions things are going in at least for the next couple of years as the US administration seems to believe it can call the shots.

Perhaps the Israeli’s will disobey and explore what is after all in their own interest, unless Olmert, like Bush, thinks he can still snatch victory from the jaws of defeat ( in another round).

from the article, voices of emboldened Syria:

Three Syrian political analysts and politicians were interviewed on national television and denied the report on Syrian arms procurement and testing of ballistic missiles. However, all three emphasized that if there is no progress toward peace with Israel, then it is the “natural right” of Syria to take other types of action in order to liberate the Golan Heights.

Muhammed Habesh, a Syrian legislator, in an interview with the Al Arabiya satellite channel, said that “if Israel attempts to do something stupid, it will pay a hefty price for it.”

Talking Points Memo comments with this question-quote linked from Andrew Sullivan:

What’s more telling is how unpopular the war is in Britain, and how an entire generation of Brits have now grown up thinking of the United States as a bullying, torturing force for instability in the world. That’s not the America I love – but it is the image of America that Bush and Cheney have built for the largest generation of human beings ever to grow up on the planet. In Italy, the government has fallen because there is no longer support for even a minimal presence in Afghanistan, let alone Iraq.”

This is the critical question, when you consider the aftershocks of what President Bush has wrought over the last 6 years. On the evidence of the last six years, is the US an aggressive, destablizing force on the global stage or a benign, ordering force?

Who can give an answer to that question that they’re proud of?

]]> By: rc21 http://www.radioopensource.org/who-won-in-iraq/#comment-84919 rc21 Fri, 23 Feb 2007 13:05:03 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/?p=944#comment-84919 I like your lead-in to this story. You used Bushes speech on the carrier. You totally ignored the fact that the speech was in regards to the militarys destruction of the Iraqi army and the removal of S.H. But once again you have let partisan journalism get in the way of truth. This seems to be fairly common on this site. Good job. I like your lead-in to this story. You used Bushes speech on the carrier. You totally ignored the fact that the speech was in regards to the militarys destruction of the Iraqi army and the removal of S.H. But once again you have let partisan journalism get in the way of truth. This seems to be fairly common on this site.

Good job.

]]>