Is the surge working?
Q&A on the latest in Iraq, first drafted on Dec. 8, published on Dec. 14, 2007
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Would Noah denkt™ concur, that the troop surge in Iraq is producing the desired results?
A: Well, it surely has had surprising success with respect to quelling the Al-Qaeda activity in Al-Anbar province
Q: And does that not mean, that President Bushes strategy change, contrary to your predictions, has worked?
A: Yes and no.
Q: What do you mean by “yes and no”?
A: Well, certainly the level of violence has been significantly reduced. And in deed we did not think this would be
possible beforehand. The question however remains open as to whether all this will lead to a lasting reconciliation
between the different ethnic and tribal fractions. After all, it is only this internal peace that will lay the ground for a
sustainable democratic government. And so one should not sing halleluja before the final mass has been
officiated.
Q: So you continue to be sceptical here about a positive outcome in Iraq?
A: Yes.
Q: Why is that so?
A: Because the desire of each ethnic group for national supremacy remains to be high and consequently the
suspicion between them continuous to prohibit a functioning and orderly administration of the national territory.
Q: But don’t you think it possible that the situation in this respect might change just as surprisingly to the better as
it has done with respect o Al-Qaeda in Al-Anbar province?
A: Possible, it is, but believe in it, we do not.
Q: On what grounds do you remain so negative here? Have you visited Iraq lately and taken a first-hand look at
the situation there?
A: No, we have not. And what’s more, we even do not speak Arabic, let alone one of the dialects that local tribes
speak there.
Q: So where do you take chuzpah from to proffer your negativity here?
A: We take it from our democratic right to voice your opinion and from our invitation to be rated on the merit of
that.
Q: But, hang on, you do not just offer your innocent opinion here, but much rather are you asking the public to
support you financially for that. Don’t you therefore believe that you have a duty to better research your stance
before you publicize it?
A: Well, we feel that we have been sufficiently diligent in developing our opinion.
Q: How so?
A: After all, we have tried to get to the bottom of our own existential challenge. And so we believe that we have
therefore gained the right to commercially comment on the tribulations that others have. For too much do we all
read from the same sheet of paper here, that we could now not permit ourselves, to compare our notes on that.
A: And you truly believe that interpreting the things of the world is as easy that?
Q: Well, we are not sure whether “easy” is the right word here. After all, it is quite a crucifying job to even try to get
to the bottom of one’s own uncertainties.
Q: But still, is such cross-analogizing truly acceptable? After all, we are dealing here with a different cultural,
political and social context. And so it is only logical that one cannot simply extrapolate from one on to the other.
For too diverse are the settings here that one could now still want to arrive at one’s conclusions on the basis of
some universalities.
A: We understand your doubts, and we must admit that we, ourselves, at times have them too. At the end of the
day, though, we still prefer to stick to our guns. For too much is that all, that we ultimately have, that we could now
still want to surrender that.
Q: Okay, let’s assume, for the sake of the argument, that you are right in this. What then leads you to argue in a
different context, that a non-Chinese speaker, based in St. Louis, cannot possibly have sufficient inside in to the
Chinese economy, to make sustainable investments calls on businesses that operate in the land of the Yuan?
Aren’t you contradicting yourself here?
A: Well, you really seem to follow our writings diligently. Thanks so much for that. We really appreciate it.
Q: No sidestepping here, please. After all, this investment analyst in St. Louis might claim just as well, that he has
got to the bottom of his own existential crisis. And so it is only fair, that he would use his perspective now, to apply
it elsewhere. For too much is he too, in your words, reading from the same sheet of paper, that you could now
discourage him from trusting his instincts here.
A: Well, to be fair, we do not want to deny him the right to make money from his “advice”. All that we are saying, is,
that you cannot compare the speculation basis in Iraq with that in the Chinese economy. For too different is the
level of (embedded) media coverage that the Iraq invasion has received, that you could now equate it with rather
the superficial reporting style that Chinese companies tend to receive.
Q: But even though, your Iraq analysis is still based on hearsay?
A: Absolutely
Q: And what makes this hearsay different from that you are criticizing with respect to the Chinese economy?
A: Well, it’s the level of diversity that differentiates the Iraq hearsay from that in China. For too much has the Iraq
chatter been one of supreme national and international (life and death) interest that one could now not bestow a
higher level of trust on that.
Q: Could it be, that you keep changing your basic positions just as it pleases you?
A: It might be. But at least, we try to stay transparent on this.
Q: Hopefully.
A: Yes, hopefully.
Q: Thank you for this Q&A session
A: You are very welcome.
Q&A on the latest in Iraq, first drafted on Dec. 8, published on Dec. 14, 2007
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Would Noah denkt™ concur, that the troop surge in Iraq is producing the desired results?
A: Well, it surely has had surprising success with respect to quelling the Al-Qaeda activity in Al-Anbar province
Q: And does that not mean, that President Bushes strategy change, contrary to your predictions, has worked?
A: Yes and no.
Q: What do you mean by “yes and no”?
A: Well, certainly the level of violence has been significantly reduced. And in deed we did not think this would be
possible beforehand. The question however remains open as to whether all this will lead to a lasting reconciliation
between the different ethnic and tribal fractions. After all, it is only this internal peace that will lay the ground for a
sustainable democratic government. And so one should not sing halleluja before the final mass has been
officiated.
Q: So you continue to be sceptical here about a positive outcome in Iraq?
A: Yes.
Q: Why is that so?
A: Because the desire of each ethnic group for national supremacy remains to be high and consequently the
suspicion between them continuous to prohibit a functioning and orderly administration of the national territory.
Q: But don’t you think it possible that the situation in this respect might change just as surprisingly to the better as
it has done with respect o Al-Qaeda in Al-Anbar province?
A: Possible, it is, but believe in it, we do not.
Q: On what grounds do you remain so negative here? Have you visited Iraq lately and taken a first-hand look at
the situation there?
A: No, we have not. And what’s more, we even do not speak Arabic, let alone one of the dialects that local tribes
speak there.
Q: So where do you take chuzpah from to proffer your negativity here?
A: We take it from our democratic right to voice your opinion and from our invitation to be rated on the merit of
that.
Q: But, hang on, you do not just offer your innocent opinion here, but much rather are you asking the public to
support you financially for that. Don’t you therefore believe that you have a duty to better research your stance
before you publicize it?
A: Well, we feel that we have been sufficiently diligent in developing our opinion.
Q: How so?
A: After all, we have tried to get to the bottom of our own existential challenge. And so we believe that we have
therefore gained the right to commercially comment on the tribulations that others have. For too much do we all
read from the same sheet of paper here, that we could now not permit ourselves, to compare our notes on that.
A: And you truly believe that interpreting the things of the world is as easy that?
Q: Well, we are not sure whether “easy” is the right word here. After all, it is quite a crucifying job to even try to get
to the bottom of one’s own uncertainties.
Q: But still, is such cross-analogizing truly acceptable? After all, we are dealing here with a different cultural,
political and social context. And so it is only logical that one cannot simply extrapolate from one on to the other.
For too diverse are the settings here that one could now still want to arrive at one’s conclusions on the basis of
some universalities.
A: We understand your doubts, and we must admit that we, ourselves, at times have them too. At the end of the
day, though, we still prefer to stick to our guns. For too much is that all, that we ultimately have, that we could now
still want to surrender that.
Q: Okay, let’s assume, for the sake of the argument, that you are right in this. What then leads you to argue in a
different context, that a non-Chinese speaker, based in St. Louis, cannot possibly have sufficient inside in to the
Chinese economy, to make sustainable investments calls on businesses that operate in the land of the Yuan?
Aren’t you contradicting yourself here?
A: Well, you really seem to follow our writings diligently. Thanks so much for that. We really appreciate it.
Q: No sidestepping here, please. After all, this investment analyst in St. Louis might claim just as well, that he has
got to the bottom of his own existential crisis. And so it is only fair, that he would use his perspective now, to apply
it elsewhere. For too much is he too, in your words, reading from the same sheet of paper, that you could now
discourage him from trusting his instincts here.
A: Well, to be fair, we do not want to deny him the right to make money from his “advice”. All that we are saying, is,
that you cannot compare the speculation basis in Iraq with that in the Chinese economy. For too different is the
level of (embedded) media coverage that the Iraq invasion has received, that you could now equate it with rather
the superficial reporting style that Chinese companies tend to receive.
Q: But even though, your Iraq analysis is still based on hearsay?
A: Absolutely
Q: And what makes this hearsay different from that you are criticizing with respect to the Chinese economy?
A: Well, it’s the level of diversity that differentiates the Iraq hearsay from that in China. For too much has the Iraq
chatter been one of supreme national and international (life and death) interest that one could now not bestow a
higher level of trust on that.
Q: Could it be, that you keep changing your basic positions just as it pleases you?
A: It might be. But at least, we try to stay transparent on this.
Q: Hopefully.
A: Yes, hopefully.
Q: Thank you for this Q&A session
A: You are very welcome.
| © Landei Selbstverlag, owned by Wilhelm ("Wil") Leonards, Gerolstein, Germany. All rights reserved. Reminder: Noah denkt™ is a project of Wilhelm ("Wil") Leonards and his Landei Selbstverlag (WL & his LSV). Consequently, all rights to the texts that have been published under the Noah denkt™brand name are reserved by WL & his LSV. The commentary and the reasoning that was provided on this page is for informational and/or educational purposes only and it is not intended to provide tax, legal or investment advice. It should therefore not be construed as an offer to sell, a solicitation of an offer to buy, or a recommendation for any security or any issuer by WL & his LSV or its Noah denkt™ Project. In fact, WL & his LSV encourage the user to understand that he alone is responsible for determining whether any investment, security or strategy is appropriate or suitable for him. And to leave no doubt as to what this means we urge our user to also note our extended Legal Notice. |
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Project for Philosophical Evaluations of the Economy |