Yup, Bush is really doing it.
Is it just me, or does this remind you as well of “pointy-haired bosses” putting more and more money into a project that everyone already knows is doomed to failure, and will bring no profit at all, just because “well, if we pull back now, it will mean that whatever was already spent is lost”? Which is, if you think about it for 5 seconds, a fallacy – what was spent is already lost, the choice is between losing even more, or not.
If it wasn’t for the fact that the main goal of the war — and, in that, it’s been an absolute success — was always to make it so that criticizing the president in any way is “unpatriotic”, I’d think that the only reason that the U.S. is still there is due to the above – better to bury more money (and, in this case, human lives) than to admit a mistake.
Peter David has some nice comments on Bush’s speech as well, plus a newer post, where he writes:
The classic definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result.
We’ve been sending troops into Iraq. The result? Civil War, fighting, and young people dying.
Bush’s solution? Send troops into Iraq.
Different result?
No reason to believe so.
Someone should do a dictionary entry for “Insanity” with Bush’s picture next to it.
No related posts.
Tags: bush, current events, iraq, peter-david, politics
Subscribe to this blog
This morning the news said 40,000 more troops.
Everybody knows this is for nothing.
My least favorite part is that they turned the idea of getting out the best possible way, to staying there with a larger force right infront of our eyes.
“Which is, if you think about it for 5 seconds, a fallacy – what was spent is already lost, the choice is between losing even more, or not.”
Yes, sunk costs. It’s one of the reasons people sell their product below cost (and then get accused of trying to unfairly undercut the competition…)
The insanity thing is kind of a fallacy, too. If we send 1,000 troops to Iraq and they get slaughtered, that doesn’t mean sending 100,000 is going to get the same result.
Frankly, I don’t think 20,000 (or even 40,000) is enough to make a difference, but I do think there is possibly some point at which adding n more troops could lead to a different result. (Well, lots more dying, but perhaps ending the civil war long enough to install a government… although again, I doubt that government would last more than a few years after we exit.)
Anyway, I don’t support this move, but I don’t think Peter David’s argument against it is 100% sound, either.
The only thing that will end the violence is to set up a government everyone can agree on. Obviously much easier said than done. Perhaps impossible. I honestly don’t see how we can expect any amount of troops to stop fighting between groups that have been fighting for centuries. At this point do we really have another choice but to just get away from it?
[quote comment="6614"]
Frankly, I don’t think 20,000 (or even 40,000) is enough to make a difference, but I do think there is possibly some point at which adding n more troops could lead to a different result. (Well, lots more dying, but perhaps ending the civil war long enough to install a government… although again, I doubt that government would last more than a few years after we exit.)
[/quote]
Interestingly, one comment on the Peter David blog said something like that: sending one million troops could, theoretically, stop the violence, because there would be American soldiers virtually everywhere.
Of course, it would simply resume the day after the troops left, as you say…
That’s one of the major parts of this whole thing that bothers me. They’ve created a way to justify staying there indefinately and even the American public can’t do anything about it.
We can protest, (picket lines and such) which won’t work. Or all of our troops can refuse to fight, and face military imprisonment. That’s about it.
I’m pretty sure most other Americans feel the same way. They can’t do anything about it, so they accept it.
On the other hand, watching America go by the wayside is interesting. All the president wants to do is make money and keep it. As well as every other politician. The economy itself will only stagger because regular people won’t have enough money to spread around. If it keeps going like this, I wouldn’t be surprised if we were begging other countries to come in and help US in twenty years.
The Escalation in Iraq…
You are thirsty as hell when you spot the soft drink machine. At last! You drop in the correct change and hit the button for your choice. Nothing happens, and the change return does nothing……
You cannot win a war you are not willing to fight. Putting your soldiers somewhere does not indicate a willingness to fight. I’m not saying this is right or wrong, though I do have an opinion. I’m simply saying I don’t think that the modern American public has the stomach or the backbone for what is ultimately coming in the not to distant future. Wish they did, we could probably save a lot of lives on both sides, but they don’t.
[quote post="197"]American public has the stomach or the backbone for what is ultimately coming in the not to distant future. Wish they did, we could probably save a lot of lives on both sides, but they don’t.[/quote]
Is this a prophecy? Dude, elaborate PLEASE.