> tBone wrote: > I just don't care to talk about it anymore :) > Here's where I think the policy difference is between many:
1.) We agree that invading Iraq was a bad move. 2.) We agree that Bush is an intellectually lazy CIC who leads "from the gut". 3.) We agree that we're now in a mess in Iraq and the question is what do we do? Your proposal seems to be that we need to do what it takes to create a Iraqi government that can govern itself, defend itself, and is self-perpetuating. I don't disagree with that, but I'm asking the questions any good manager would: 1.) What's that worth? 2.) What will it cost? 3.) What has it cost so far? That is, throwing good money after bad has never fixed a wrong decision. So the question is, will it this time? My suggestion is that we've spent too much to gain too little and spending more will neither fix that loss nor gain us more. Why? Because of a concept called NPV, Net Present Value. NPV asks the question, what else could we do with our money and does that alternative have a higher pay out than your suggestion? If our goal is a stable Middle East, then my call is that we could spend $4 Billion per week in better way achieve that goal. Thus my reasoning for pulling the plug. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:218620 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
