'No Pain No Gain'
 

So much for winning their hearts and minds...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines

Hahahaha :<

YOU'RE A MAN OF 25 I CAN'T BE AROUND TO HOLD YOUR HAND ALL THE TIME WHENEVER YOU GET INVADED. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE LIFE LESSONS AND WHAT'S IMPORTANT IS THAT YOU LEARN HOW TO DEAL WITH IT.

And so what little respect we have garnered over there will be flushed down the toilet...

... if they had working toilets.

Boy, I sure didn't see this coming twenty miles away.

that article isn't skewed at all and is also completely factual in its entirety.


yes. yes it is.


totally true.


and not skewed either.

Did you read all three pages? I thought it was very balanced, and for the most part, quoted figures that would be easily verified or invalidated if you doubted their accuracy. If anything, I would say the above posters' interpretation of the article is skewed, not the article itself. Would you care to provide some examples to back your opinion that it was skewed and innaccurate?

Or are you just gonna be a sarcastic, dismissive little bitch cuz it didn't come from your list of talking-point approved sources?

oh, I dunno, are you going to pull another generic insult from your over-used repertoire?

"YOU ARE STUPID AND LISTEN TO PUNDITS LOLOLOL"

Stop beating about the bush and answer the man's question.

Serious business.

But seriously, answer him. I'm curious, too.

Listening to pundits doesn't make you stupid. Believing them does.



BTW Spectre, I think he answered my last question pretty clearly. :(

Bias in the story? Not a whole lot. Bias in the analysis? Sure. Expectations met.

Of course Geggy will say this is just par for the course, verifying his long held beliefs that Team Bush only ever had the most evil of intentions for Iraq. Trouble is, the article doesn't really say anything like that. Basically, Iraq's economic future is subject to the same conditions as that of any other country save the US and possibly GB and Germany: Globalized Free Markets.

Those that would suggest that Iraq could have any future at all without learning the bond market and doing it herself are quite simply clueless.

That being said, I did notice the complete lack of any data within the story regarding whatever private investment may or may not already be present in Iraq. We are told about the government pledges, how far behind they are, and that they are not going to last forever... but of the actual future we are left to believe there is no plan other than "tough love," as if that was something Team Bush is just now making up for lack of something more substantial.

Is that bias? Maybe just stupidity. Bad Journalism combined with a lack of economic knowledge? Probably more like it.

I don't think the story was slanted to leave any particular impression other than the writers need to find jobs for which they're more qualified.

once the 18.6 billion dollars are spent
Iraq's government expenditures in 2004 were 28 billion, with about 5 billion on capital expenditures
well, I dunno, maybe 18.6 billion isn't enough
it does sound like a lot of money

in any case, we really should just let the market sort itself out in this regard, that usually works.

That doesn't sound violently happy to me.

I was smiling while I typed it.

I hope there is more funding in the future.

Maybe I will donate...

Nah.

Couldn't this story (whether it's biased or not) be attributed to the anti-war sentiment in this country?

There's nothing new here-- Americans love going to war, but hate cleaning it up. I think the Left is just as muchto blame here. If you try to build up the idea that Iraq was a waste, that men and women are needlessly dying, and that we should withdraw ASAP, then people just might start to agree with you!

If funding falls flat and Iraq never fully rebuilds, then we have failed on both fronts, IMO. The real blow to terrorism wasn't the invasion, but the promise of what Iraq could be, or the kind of example it could set in the middle east.

I think it was supposed to be an example of what happens when you fuck with the US. Like when we took out Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of WW2 - it was sort of a "don't fuck with us" gesture. Our army is much better suited to nation destroying than to nation building.

We need a new kind of army or something.

To be fair about Japan, you did turn the milataristic and imperial nation into one of the best liberal democraices in the region after you dropped the nukes on them. So, at least at that point the US and it's army must have been at least sort of suited to nation building in addition to nation destroying.

Japan owes it's economy to america from everything I've ever understood about their history... history that i learned in an american history book.

I agree with some of the sentiment, but I think we have a heritage of rebuilding countries - see the Marshal Plan, and the way that we wanted to constructively deal with Germany in our 11 points that Pres. Wilson drafted after WWI.

We even did a lot to help Korea after our war there. And still are doing a lot.

[quote]If funding falls flat and Iraq never fully rebuilds, then we have failed on both fronts, IMO. The real blow to terrorism wasn't the invasion, but the promise of what Iraq could be, or the kind of example it could set in the middle east.[/quote

True.

Japan did that. We may have added ingredients they needed (for profit... don't kid yourself ) but Japan would still be a mess were it not for the people of Japan and their dedication to their own lives.


I thought you were against this reasoning.

I was against the invasion. But if I break a wine glass set in a store, I like to think I'd pay for it.

There's no reason to be a downer, IMO, about the positive things coming out of Iraq. That would be counter-productive, however it doesn't necessarily justify the invasion.