birdwatcher: (Default)
[personal profile] birdwatcher
Britain’s top army commander said the presence of British troops in Iraq was exacerbating security problems on the ground and they should be withdrawn soon. Gen. Sir Richard Dannatt said the British presence in Iraq also hurt British security interests abroad.

А мы? А мы? А у нас я -- первый (и, наверное, единственный), кто считает, что можно уйти сейчас из Ирака, без катастрофических последствий для безопасности и экономики США.

Date: 2006-10-13 01:21 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bbb.livejournal.com
Ну вот, опять меня не посчитали :(((

Date: 2006-10-13 02:04 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ilya-dogolazky.livejournal.com
*** Вместе с остальными избирателями Баднарика ***
А кто это такой и куда он избирался?

Date: 2006-10-13 02:15 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] birdwatcher.livejournal.com
В президенты США, куда же еще.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badnarik#Issue_positions

Date: 2006-10-13 02:21 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ilya-dogolazky.livejournal.com
Ой-вей, Надеру проиграл в битве за бронзу... Жалко его. А Джеси Джексон в этот раз выступал?

Date: 2006-10-13 02:26 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] birdwatcher.livejournal.com
Нет (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_2004#Election_results).

Date: 2006-10-13 03:51 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ireznikov.livejournal.com
Считайте меня тоже. Уйти можно. Без последствий для себя. Сиюминутных, по крайней мере.. Правда, региону этому совсем трындец настанет, я думаю. Да и вложенных денег жалко. А как это отразится на будущих раскладах, я рассуждать не готов.

Date: 2006-10-13 03:56 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] birdwatcher.livejournal.com
Несомненно, это серьезная проблема для региона.

Date: 2006-10-13 05:55 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] capka3m.livejournal.com
> вложенных денег жалко

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost

Date: 2006-10-13 06:09 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ireznikov.livejournal.com
From that article, it's assumed that someone:

1. Paid the price of the ticket and suffered watching a movie that he does not want to see, or;
2. Paid the price of the ticket and used the time to do something more fun.

They don't discuss situation 3: paid the price and enjoyed the movie.

I am sure that Bush and his team have some kind of agenda in Iraq. He probably expects to "enjoy the movie" at some point, if he doesn't now. However, he didn't pay for it with his own money, he "embezelled". Some people were talking about possible impeachement after the elections in November... We'll see.

Date: 2006-10-13 06:18 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] birdwatcher.livejournal.com
Хорошая версия: демократы поддерживают оккупацию, чтобы было за что смещать Буша. Я это всегда подозревал.

Date: 2006-10-13 06:26 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ireznikov.livejournal.com
Демократ - это я? :)

Или демократы в целом поддерживают оккупацию?

Date: 2006-10-13 06:29 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] birdwatcher.livejournal.com
Демократы в целом поддерживают оккупацию.

Date: 2006-10-13 09:21 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] syarzhuk.livejournal.com
Лучшая конспиративная версия из всех, что я когда-нибудь читал!

Date: 2006-10-13 07:30 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] capka3m.livejournal.com
Absolutely. We can generate a number of reasons why someone would not consider this money 'sunk' (from an optimistic assessment of the situation forecasting a future victory - to a vilest crackpot big oil conspiracy theory where the victory is not important at all). What I meant is, merely, that if from _your_ point of view the venture is a failure, the "we've already put so much money in it" becomes a sunk cost argument and is neither here nor there.

Date: 2006-10-13 07:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ireznikov.livejournal.com
My only concern in this partcular situation that I am not sure if it's a failure or not.
For me personally, a failure is not reaching a set goal in a set timeframe. Right now I may suspect that current administration failed by looking at the goals and timeframes that they presented to the public. What their real goals and timeframes are - I don't know. However, if we pull out right now, whoever makes the decision admits that it's a failure (and I am fine with that).

From my point of view, this operation hasn't failed, as my timeframe for getting to their publically announced goals is much more flexible. What I am saying is, this was a mistake from the very beginning - but not something completely "undoable". It's just bad planning and forecasting.

Date: 2006-10-15 02:35 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] capka3m.livejournal.com
> For me personally, a failure is not reaching a set goal in a set timeframe.

I think there is one more element of the triple constraint missing in your definition :) Scope (aka goal) / schedule / resources. So, what resources are you ready to throw at accomplishing this goal? In this war, just like in Vietnam, the real question to me seems to be - what are the resources we are ready to expend? So, from my point of view, it is a failure because we have already spent more than I would have been prepared to, with no visible progress (in fact, quite the opposite, a quick deterioration of the situation). Maybe we did not use or resources right, but that's beside the point now.

So I do not want to see it in the terms of doable/undoable. It might well have been doable but it ain't no more.

Date: 2006-10-13 10:51 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] zhenyach.livejournal.com
Мы, разумеется, всегда были безусловно против этой войны. Или, что то же самое, за немедленный вывод войск

Это не то же самое. Вы ещё скажите, что я сплю, пока ем, и я ем, пока сплю - это одно и то же.

Date: 2006-10-13 10:59 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] birdwatcher.livejournal.com
Вот тут я буду спорить до посинения. Либо за немедленный и безусловный вывод войск, либо за продолжение оккупации: закон исключенного третьего.