SERVING THE QUANTITATIVE FINANCE COMMUNITY

 
User avatar
zeta
Posts: 1952
Joined: September 27th, 2005, 3:25 pm

My government spent $242,993,320,124 in Iraq and all I got was this lousy civil war

February 27th, 2006, 4:02 pm

Instead of forever bitching over things which are out of our hands, we could all work towards the good of others within our particular sphere(s) of influence, regardless of our political and religious passions, or lack thereof?
 
User avatar
skeptible
Posts: 256
Joined: October 29th, 2001, 10:07 pm

My government spent $242,993,320,124 in Iraq and all I got was this lousy civil war

February 28th, 2006, 2:24 am

Why can't we do both?
 
User avatar
zeta
Posts: 1952
Joined: September 27th, 2005, 3:25 pm

My government spent $242,993,320,124 in Iraq and all I got was this lousy civil war

February 28th, 2006, 2:25 pm

true
Last edited by zeta on February 27th, 2006, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
doreilly
Topic Author
Posts: 727
Joined: February 1st, 2005, 1:22 am

My government spent $242,993,320,124 in Iraq and all I got was this lousy civil war

March 2nd, 2006, 3:16 am

Another day another lie
 
User avatar
AlanB
Posts: 662
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

My government spent $242,993,320,124 in Iraq and all I got was this lousy civil war

March 2nd, 2006, 12:26 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: NMy government spent $242,993,320,124 in Iraq and all I got was this lousy civil warStop complaining... It's our crusade to convert these non-believers to creationism, and crusades ain't cheap. .I couldn't care less what their religious beliefs are. (I think) It would solve a lot if they felt the same way about those that don't follow Islam. "....To each, his own...." - why is that so complicated?
 
User avatar
AlanB
Posts: 662
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

My government spent $242,993,320,124 in Iraq and all I got was this lousy civil war

March 2nd, 2006, 12:27 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: doreillyAnother day another lieI think people are FINALLY beginning to see the incompetent putz that Dubya really is
Last edited by AlanB on March 1st, 2006, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
TraderJoe
Posts: 11048
Joined: February 1st, 2005, 11:21 pm

My government spent $242,993,320,124 in Iraq and all I got was this lousy civil war

January 28th, 2007, 1:10 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: DCFC You know DCFC, we're not all bad eggs I agree.It's the "good" evangelicals that do the most damage, by helping the bad guys.You believe in a personal God ? Fine.What Christians lack is a bit of the Bible of the form:God took Zebedee to one side."Lord, look I do your work"God saw the work of Zebedee. Florence was lying in a pool of blood."Why do you harm this woman ?" asks God"I did not harm her, others did", replies Zebedee."Did you follow the leader who was stupid, yea more stupid than the beetle which eats the dung of a camel""Yes", said Zebedee. "Stupid is good. Wise men are never quite sure of their faith, and the leader I might have followed did not talk of his religion every 5 minutes"."So you chose good over wise ?" Asked God."Yes" said Zebedee"And when you saw that the good man put other good men to lead important missions like saving lives, but that they were also less wise than the dung that the desert beetle eats, and people died. Did you choose another leader ? ". "No", said Zebedee, "the people who died were almost all black and poor, and we are white and rich, and we follow your word in a very very slightly different way from these people, so they don't matter. But because I am a good man, I gave $5 to their aid".You get the drift.No religion has a commandment, to think things through. ECs emote over big issues that do not face them personally, and are thus more cruel in the execution of such actions than someone who actually gets their kicks from hurting people. When they learn of suffering caused by the policies, they convenice themselves that it's a price worth paying (paid by others), or better still that the people affected are bad, so deserve it. Condom users must be bad people, and of course remember AIDS being the vegeance of God. By the way did anyone explain why God liked lesbians so much ? They were about the lowest risk group.Who really cares about people in Africa ? Many aren't any sort of Christian, a good % aren't even Moslems either. So you can be "against" condoms there, and the might of the USA can be usedto stop "evil" condom use, whilst AIDS runs riot. You can feel smug about your stand, and the media won't bore you very often with yet another film of children dying slowly in Africa. Heck, they were going to die anyway soon of something, it's Africa, right ?Abortion isn't being banned, merely only allowed for the rich. Stem cell research doesn't yet build treatments you personally can use, so doesn't matter.Creatonism is bollocks, I've seen your other posts, you're smart enough to know that.So why do you support groups who lie to children ?You are in effect helping people to deceibe children about the nature of God. I'm not a christian, but that doesn't strike me as what you guys are supposed to be about.Catholics are well intentioned, so you give money to leaders who make very sure that the RICO laws aren't used on an outfit that organised the rape of children, and it's cover up.Moslems are shits, indeed most of them don't even have the sense to be white, so torturing them is fine.If ECs wanted torture to stop in camp X-Ray it would stop so fast you couldn't measure the time lag.Note there is a bit of a theme here. Children seem to get it in the neck first when EC policies get put into practice, though poor and coloured ones don't do well either.You play the victim well dom.
Last edited by TraderJoe on January 27th, 2007, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
fars1d3s
Posts: 451
Joined: August 14th, 2004, 12:28 pm

My government spent $242,993,320,124 in Iraq and all I got was this lousy civil war

January 28th, 2007, 3:57 pm

Why did Bush instigate a religious war ?
 
User avatar
dibble
Posts: 727
Joined: October 2nd, 2006, 5:19 pm

My government spent $242,993,320,124 in Iraq and all I got was this lousy civil war

January 28th, 2007, 4:42 pm

Bush's Armageddon Obsession
 
User avatar
tbonds
Posts: 246
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

My government spent $242,993,320,124 in Iraq and all I got was this lousy civil war

January 28th, 2007, 5:18 pm

Here are my big picuture questions:1) Can U.S. win war in Iraq (i.e. properly control the country)?2) What is U.S. to do with Iraq if it wins the war?Answer to 1 is "yes", and by sending over not just enough troops, but more than we think we need. Rumsfeld ran the Iraq war like a business in that he only sent over just enough troops to occupy the country, but not enough to decisively control it. So, Bush's sending over more troops makes total sense if you want to win the war. Historical evidence of when we've sent more troops to Iraq, versus reducing their numbers, has born out the fact that more troops reduces violence, casualties, and chaos. War can't be run like a business where you only spend (send) just enough money (troops) to achieve the profit objective (win the war). In war the stakes are usually much higher and can always be raised, which is not normally the case in business. This is why Rumsfeld failed so miserably as defense secretary (aside from Abu Graib).My answer to 2 is.."I don't know". But our presence in Iraq, rightly or wrongly (for you business people consider the decision to invade Iraq a "sunk cost"), obligates us to see this through to a successful conclusion for the Iraqis and for the world.
 
User avatar
dibble
Posts: 727
Joined: October 2nd, 2006, 5:19 pm

My government spent $242,993,320,124 in Iraq and all I got was this lousy civil war

January 28th, 2007, 5:58 pm

-- Historical evidence of when we've sent more troops to Iraq, versus reducing their numbers, has born out the fact that more troops reduces violence, casualties, and chaos. a) Please cite your sourceb) What was the length of the studyc) Were there any other parameters that may have affected the study-- Answer to 1 is "yes", and by sending over not just enough troops, but more than we think we need. a) Why do you assume that a temporary reduction in violence (still yet to be cited) , leads to a win.-- obligates us to see this through to a successful conclusion for the Iraqis and for the world.a) I will assume that this is your personal opinion. b) There are in fact other solutions that can also possibly lead to a "successful conclusion for the Iraqis and for the world.". Though at this stage, this too is merely an opinion.I get the feeling that your heart is speaking. While typical in the human, it does not necessarily mean truth,
 
User avatar
tbonds
Posts: 246
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

My government spent $242,993,320,124 in Iraq and all I got was this lousy civil war

January 28th, 2007, 6:44 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: dibble-- Historical evidence of when we've sent more troops to Iraq, versus reducing their numbers, has born out the fact that more troops reduces violence, casualties, and chaos. a) Please cite your source>>The Brookings Institue, but I don't have the web link to the study as a colleague had sent me study via snail mail.I'm sure it available on their website, or upon request.b) What was the length of the study>>For this particular post, just the Iraq War to date since 2003 invasion.I think if I dug a bit I'd see similar similar stats for the Civil War and WW II.I'm also fairly confident that my opinion is 'War 101' to those experienced in the armed services.c) Were there any other parameters that may have affected the study>>Not sure, and study didn't mention anything, but this might be inviting more of my "opinions" if I offer something up.-- Answer to 1 is "yes", and by sending over not just enough troops, but more than we think we need. a) Why do you assume that a temporary reduction in violence (still yet to be cited) , leads to a win.>>reduction in violence is coincidental indicator to winning a war. It indicates control over the situation, and control eventually leads to victory.-- obligates us to see this through to a successful conclusion for the Iraqis and for the world.a) I will assume that this is your personal opinion.>>Note that I haven't stated what my "sucessful conclusion" is...for that seems to be a bit open ended, although "Iraq for Iraqi people" is high on my list.b) There are in fact other solutions that can also possibly lead to a "successful conclusion for the Iraqis and for the world.". Though at this stage, this too is merely an opinion.>>Again, I have been vague about what "successful conclusion" means, as I'm not totally sure what that would be. My focus was really that the war is winnable by the U.S., but what we'd do with Iraq once the war was won is not clear to me. Kind of like having a bear by the tail. I get the feeling that your heart is speaking. While typical in the human, it does not necessarily mean truth,>>Of course not.
Last edited by tbonds on January 27th, 2007, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
dibble
Posts: 727
Joined: October 2nd, 2006, 5:19 pm

My government spent $242,993,320,124 in Iraq and all I got was this lousy civil war

January 28th, 2007, 7:04 pm

1) I would be interested in the name of the study2) So it is an open ended study? Have they not come to a conclusion? Why is the study still going ?3) If the reduction in violence was linear (and it is not) then I agree that it may look like that the US has 'control over the situation." But we do have "Correlation V Causation". I assume that this has been covered in the study. Otherwise we may have to leave the troops in Iraq for all time. After all, the insurgents may just be waiting at home watching "Oprah" until the troops leave.4) What is your definition of "win he war"
 
User avatar
dibble
Posts: 727
Joined: October 2nd, 2006, 5:19 pm

My government spent $242,993,320,124 in Iraq and all I got was this lousy civil war

January 28th, 2007, 8:50 pm

to get back to the question at hand... Birth Pangs of a New Christian Zionism
 
User avatar
dibble
Posts: 727
Joined: October 2nd, 2006, 5:19 pm

My government spent $242,993,320,124 in Iraq and all I got was this lousy civil war

January 28th, 2007, 8:56 pm

orBush's Rush to ArmageddonRobert ParryAny more questions ?
ABOUT WILMOTT

PW by JB

Wilmott.com has been "Serving the Quantitative Finance Community" since 2001. Continued...


Twitter LinkedIn Instagram

JOBS BOARD

JOBS BOARD

Looking for a quant job, risk, algo trading,...? Browse jobs here...


GZIP: On