[quote]Headhunter wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Very soon, Iraq will settle down, the oil will start to flow and, 5 years from now, it’ll actually be a mecca for capital and investment. The ‘civil war’ will simply evaporate and the country will boom economically. We SHOULD NOT leave these magnificent people!
I’m putting some chips on the resurgence of a liberated people.
Headhunter
I hope you’re right, but I’m pretty curious about what, if anything, you’re basing this on.
Simple. The United States isn’t leaving, the Iraqi people are highly educated, they don’t want to be dominated by Iran (if they are poor and have no US presence, they WILL be dominated). Check the site. For really a pittance, you can roll those dice. Imagine if you could have invested in German stocks in late 1945. The results are simply amazing.
[/quote]
Isn’t this an apples to oranges comparison? I can see the allure of trying to bottom fish the Dinar, but comparing it to buying into post WWII Germany? Instead of comparing German equities to Iraqi currency, I’m thinking more along the lines of post WWI Germany, prior to the outright devaluation of their currency. Maybe this isn’t analogous either, though. I’m not saying it’s not a good potential play, I’m just saying always remember the other side of the trade, and it might require a LONG time line before it works out. As Jesse Livermore said, “It’s never too low to sell.”
Maybe it’s not our choice. As the initial 6 point contingency war plan stated, the US supports democracy and the sanctity of the Nation State. Mayb ewhat is needed is an Iraqi referendum on the issue on a regular basis so that THEY can decide when the US needs to pull out. It is their country after all. It is time they start making decisions about their future.
Isn’t this an apples to oranges comparison? I can see the allure of trying to bottom fish the Dinar, but comparing it to buying into post WWII Germany? Instead of comparing German equities to Iraqi currency, I’m thinking more along the lines of post WWI Germany, prior to the outright devaluation of their currency. Maybe this isn’t analogous either, though. I’m not saying it’s not a good potential play, I’m just saying always remember the other side of the trade, and it might require a LONG time line before it works out. As Jesse Livermore said, “It’s never too low to sell.”
[/quote]
Germany was raped by the Treaty of Versailles, which eventually led to Hitler rising to power. I think we’ve learned to stay the course and treat an old foe so that they don’t have reason to to attack again.
I wish they’d do in Iraq what we do in Alaska. Give a chunk of the profits to residents. Imagine if each Iraqi got a check for $1000 every year. The terrorism would end tomorrow.
Isn’t this an apples to oranges comparison? I can see the allure of trying to bottom fish the Dinar, but comparing it to buying into post WWII Germany? Instead of comparing German equities to Iraqi currency, I’m thinking more along the lines of post WWI Germany, prior to the outright devaluation of their currency. Maybe this isn’t analogous either, though. I’m not saying it’s not a good potential play, I’m just saying always remember the other side of the trade, and it might require a LONG time line before it works out. As Jesse Livermore said, “It’s never too low to sell.”
Germany was raped by the Treaty of Versailles, which eventually led to Hitler rising to power. I think we’ve learned to stay the course and treat an old foe so that they don’t have reason to to attack again.
I wish they’d do in Iraq what we do in Alaska. Give a chunk of the profits to residents. Imagine if each Iraqi got a check for $1000 every year. The terrorism would end tomorrow.
[/quote]
…or it would further anger them with an attempt to “buy” their loyalty, and simultaneously provide additional funding for weapons and training.
…not that I’m a pessimist… I just don’t think extremeists can be “bought”.
These people are out for REVENGE, and to get us out of their country so they can make a play for more power. A G a year ain’t going to do the trick.
[quote]fos121 wrote:
Maybe it’s not our choice. As the initial 6 point contingency war plan stated, the US supports democracy and the sanctity of the Nation State. Mayb ewhat is needed is an Iraqi referendum on the issue on a regular basis so that THEY can decide when the US needs to pull out. It is their country after all. It is time they start making decisions about their future.[/quote]
Interesting suggestion. I’d support this if there was a genuine attempt to educate the Iraqi populace on the potential outcoes of either result. (I’m not talking propaganda, I’m talking genuine discussion)
And there in lies the rub. Accurate information for incisive political decision making for a vast populace. And no propoganda. Where else do we see a problem with this, I wonder … ?
I like the idea for this thread. I was originally against the war, but as a consequentialist (utilitarian) I realize that staying in the country may be the action with the best consequences . . .
I like Joe Biden’s idea for the country (he was on Hardball today). He thinks that the Iraqi constitution should be changed so that a group of “states” can form a confederacy that has a significant amount of autonomy within the country. With the national government providing defense. This way, the Kurds, Shia, and Sunni would be allowed to make their own laws (to an extent) within the country.
[quote]Heuristic wrote:
I like the idea for this thread. I was originally against the war, but as a consequentialist (utilitarian) I realize that staying in the country may be the action with the best consequences . . .
I like Joe Biden’s idea for the country (he was on Hardball today). He thinks that the Iraqi constitution should be changed so that a group of “states” can form a confederacy that has a significant amount of autonomy within the country. With the national government providing defense. This way, the Kurds, Shia, and Sunni would be allowed to make their own laws (to an extent) within the country.
[/quote]
That IS a very interesting proposal, but it would also serve to further divide Iraq, and could provide a lot of room for horrible inequities between the confederacies.
[quote]fos121 wrote:
And there in lies the rub. Accurate information for incisive political decision making for a vast populace. And no propoganda. Where else do we see a problem with this, I wonder … ?[/quote]
Saddam was running the country into the ground. The guy liked to start wars. The people lived in absolute terror.
I forsee that, given a choice between more barbarism and American style capitalism, most Iraqis will choose the latter. Iraq will become an absolute mecca for capital and investment.
Think of it this way: How many of you would invest in China in, say, 1985? How could a country like that ever become a capitalist country? Same deal. Iraq is going to be the gem of the region.
“Buy when the blood is running in the streets.” — Nathan Rothschild
I forsee that, given a choice between more barbarism and American style capitalism, most Iraqis will choose the latter. [/quote]
See that’s our problem right there. We thought all we had to do was get a dictator off their backs and they’ll start building malls.
Sure they’re glad we got rid of Saddam but that’s only because now they can democratically elect a Islamic facist government that will probably be a hell of a lot more friendly to terrorists than Saddam ever was.
I forsee that, given a choice between more barbarism and American style capitalism, most Iraqis will choose the latter.
See that’s our problem right there. We thought all we had to do was get a dictator off their backs and they’ll start building malls.
Sure they’re glad we got rid of Saddam but that’s only because now they can democratically elect a Islamic facist government that will probably be a hell of a lot more friendly to terrorists than Saddam ever was. [/quote]
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington.[/quote]
The comparison is not a fair one. The soldiers have guns and body armor, travel in groups in armored vehicles and generally have various other supports that aim to keep them out of harm’s way as much as possible.
Take away all the military equipment and organisation and see how fast your death rate goes through the roof. If you had 160,000 civilians with handguns over there, you wouldn’t have to worry about pulling out, they’d be nodoby left to pull out.
[quote]knewsom wrote:
That IS a very interesting proposal, but it would also serve to further divide Iraq, and could provide a lot of room for horrible inequities between the confederacies.[/quote]
Iraq is already a country that’s been artificially put together way back then by the British Empire. It was maintained together by Saddam through ruthless tyranny.
To expect it to hold together by itself, and to be a democracy, no less, seems to me unrealistic. Too many people here seem unaware of the culture and history of the region and seem to think that the inhabitants will gladly accept being told how to live. Imperialism only appears sensible to those imposing it.
[quote]pookie wrote:
If you had 160,000 civilians with handguns over there, you wouldn’t have to worry about pulling out, they’d be nodoby left to pull out.[/quote]
Almost every man/boy in Iraq has at least 1 machine gun. We allow them to keep 1 per household for protection.
I forsee that, given a choice between more barbarism and American style capitalism, most Iraqis will choose the latter.
See that’s our problem right there. We thought all we had to do was get a dictator off their backs and they’ll start building malls.
Sure they’re glad we got rid of Saddam but that’s only because now they can democratically elect a Islamic facist government that will probably be a hell of a lot more friendly to terrorists than Saddam ever was. [/quote]
Do you think the currently elected Iraqi government is Islamofascist friendly?