Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (185612)	4/25/2006 11:09:30 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

That's why the USA is the richest place on the planet in GDP, even with hordes of illegal low value immigrants and all sorts of dopey ideas: <The other side, as you might expect was... this is NOT like WWII; free market; oil companies have the right to make as much money as possible.ake as much money as possible> Shareholders of oil companies will love it. Anyone could buy shares if they liked and get a piece of the action. People invest in the USA [as I have done] because they are allowed to actually make some money there by investing in great stuff which everyone around the world wants to buy. Too many grotty little countries rob anyone who does anything useful so they don't bother. The USA does too, but not as badly. They even allow dividends to be paid without being taxed [profits have already been taxed at exorbitant rates in the USA]. Mqurice

To: jttmab who wrote (185612)	4/25/2006 4:31:47 PM
From: geode00	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The number of Americans killed is a fraction of those greviously wounded, suffering from lifelong PTSD and the families and friends and colleagues of same. This is the problem with a corporate war like this. 1. The number of contractors both US and not isn't tallied. 2. The number of wounded and how greviously they are wounded isn't really discussed. 3. The number of dead and wounded and destroyed Iraqis is hidden. As with all things, one person dying for a thing like this is too many. Ten thousand people dying for a worthwhile cause can be justified...maybe not to them but at least to their families. I've never bought the argument that it's ok for the military to die just because they volunteered for the job. Cops and firefighters volunteer for their jobs as well, does that mean they can get killed willy nilly and can never complain about what happens to them? Whereas I think most cops are boneheaded thugs, I still don't think it means their lives aren't worth some reasonable level of protection. The military doesn't volunteer to die for no reason. The military volunteer for a job that usually includes NOT DYING. The only comparison between FDR and Dubyette is the comparison between possibly the greatest president in US History and the worst president in US history. I heard that if Iraq continues, and it will, through the end of this year, it will be as long a conflict as WWII. That means while FDR helped defeat a heavily industrialized imperialistic worldwide force, Dubyette is stuck in a third world country devastated by decades of war and sanctions. To say that he's inept gives inept people a bad name. Democracy is about voting. Capitalism is about providing the best products/services to a thoroughly informed, thoroughly free-to-choose clientele. There is nothing democratic or capitalistic about BigOil which is why they simply buy politicians to get their corporate welfare and not worry about the quality of their product. Ditto BigPharma, BigFinance, BigWalMart...it's much easier to be thoroughly corrupt than be a true capitalist. Republicans are inept in everything including understanding basic economics. :)

To: jttmab who wrote (185612)	4/25/2006 4:39:37 PM
From: Nicholas Thompson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Well it is true that only about 2,400 US troops have been killed in Iraq. That, however, does not include the 430 US contractors killed there or the approximate 250 US troops and dozens of contractors killed in Afghanistan; nor the 17,500 US troops seriously wounded in Iraq, many of whom would have died in previous Wars; nor the approximate 1,000 US troops wounded in Afghanistan, nor the dozens of US contractors wounded there. Now we are beginning to get into serious numbers. It also does not include approximately 32,000 US troops and unknown US contractors who were either slightly wounded or became mentally or physically sick in Iraq; many with symptoms which relate to depleted uranium exposure. There are also more US troops and contractors from Afghanistan with these illnesses. And it does not include the massive losses in Iraq; no matter who started it, And I think it is horrible, Iraqi civilian deaths are at least 1,500 a month , some say closer to 2,000 a month, mostly from death squads, not bombs. The US casualty totals approach 60,000 and are significant, especially when the US civilian population back home has made little or no sacrifice. And OBL is still roaming free and Iraq is a mess and likely to cost more than any other War we have ever fought , adjusted for inflation , aside from WWII.

To: jttmab who wrote (185612)	4/25/2006 5:17:56 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

The Cost of The War pascalriche's picture By Pascal Riche \| bio Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard budget expert Linda Bilmes plan to present this week a paper estimating the cost of the Iraq War at between $1-2 trillion. This is far higher than earlier estimates of $100-200 billion. Here is their statement: NEW STUDY SUGGESTS ECONOMIC COST OF IRAQ WAR MUCH LARGER THAN PREVIOUSLY RECOGNIZED A new study by two leading academic experts suggests that the costs of the Iraq war will be substantially higher than previously reckoned. In a paper presented to this week’s Allied Social Sciences Association annual meeting in Boston MA., Harvard budget expert Linda Bilmes and Columbia University Professor and Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz calculate that the war is likely to cost the United States a minimum of nearly one trillion dollars and potentially over $2 trillion. The study expands on traditional budgetary estimates by including costs such as lifetime disability and health care for the over16,000 injured, one fifth of whom have serious brain or spinal injuries. It then goes on to analyze the costs to the economy, including the economic value of lives lost and the impact of factors such as higher oil prices that can be partly attributed to the conflict in Iraq. The paper also calculates the impact on the economy if a proportion of the money spent on the Iraq war were spent in other ways, including on investments in the United States “Shortly before the war, when Administration economist Larry Lindsey suggested that the costs might range between $100 and $200 billion, Administration spokesmen quickly distanced themselves from those numbers,” points out Professor Stiglitz. “But in retrospect, it appears that Lindsey’s numbers represented a gross underestimate of the actual costs.” The Allied Social Sciences Association meeting is attended by the nation’s leading economists and social scientists. It is sponsored jointly by the American Economic Association and the Economists for Peace and Security. ________________________________________ The administration (and DoD) have learned good lessons about how to conduct unpopular wars. One of them is to get rid of draft and replace it with "reserve" enticement. The way membership in the National Guard and Reserve was (is?) advertised is misleading. Another lesson was embeding the journalists instead of letting them run free. And finally, they learned to spend the money to keep casualties low. I think it is safe to say that in this war money has been substituted for blood. In the long run, this may in fact be more harmful to the country. A few weeks ago Australia became officially debt free. Now that is the kind of conservatism I can respect. ST