Forums > Social Discussion > the cost of Iraq
Login/Join to Participate"if i jump in the fire, will you?"
633 posts
Location: USA, wishing I was in SA
633 posts
Location: USA, wishing I was in SA
Posted:
P- Bush asked congress the other day for an increase to wage the war on Iraq. He is asking for $80 Billion , bring the total price of going to war with Iraq up to round $320 Billion . now considdering that there are about 300 million people living in the US of A , that would mean that the war is costing each and every single person $1200 . now for you and me that doesnt sound too expensive over one year , hundred bucks a month (wow that is alot of cash!) but for a family of four thats $4800 a year ! now cosidder how many people dont even pay taxes and the ones that " just slip through the cracks " the " illeagal imms."
the people to blame are winning the war of making every American's life a missery! just like their lives are
"this war is not won or lost in Iraq , but in the hearts of every American... "
just my thoughts ....... thanks for reading
( numbers rounded off )
P- Bush asked congress the other day for an increase to wage the war on Iraq. He is asking for $80 Billion , bring the total price of going to war with Iraq up to round $320 Billion . now considdering that there are about 300 million people living in the US of A , that would mean that the war is costing each and every single person $1200 . now for you and me that doesnt sound too expensive over one year , hundred bucks a month (wow that is alot of cash!) but for a family of four thats $4800 a year ! now cosidder how many people dont even pay taxes and the ones that " just slip through the cracks " the " illeagal imms."
the people to blame are winning the war of making every American's life a missery! just like their lives are
"this war is not won or lost in Iraq , but in the hearts of every American... "
just my thoughts ....... thanks for reading
( numbers rounded off )
i like breaking the Law 
, of Gravity 
!
BRONZE Member
Certainly confused
121 posts
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, United Kingdom
Certainly confused
121 posts
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, United Kingdom
Posted:
Just a quickun as Im orf home in a min
Spot on with 'Schmuck'
Patooty is another one.
Right - I reckon doing away with 'parties' is a must...will expand tomorrow....
Just a quickun as Im orf home in a min
Spot on with 'Schmuck'
Patooty is another one.
Right - I reckon doing away with 'parties' is a must...will expand tomorrow....
My Mummy Says Im Special
BRONZE Member
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Posted:
We do need some system that will enable decisions to be made, though.
Or draw up policies that are flexible enough to be interpreted within a moral code.
Hehehehe. Fantasy politics
We do need some system that will enable decisions to be made, though.
Or draw up policies that are flexible enough to be interpreted within a moral code.
Hehehehe. Fantasy politics
Getting to the other side 
BRONZE Member
Certainly confused
121 posts
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, United Kingdom
Certainly confused
121 posts
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, United Kingdom
Posted:
Wow - talk about a twilight zone moment.
I said the exact same thing last night, it started in the context of religion and moved onto law. BAsically I was saying how we've lost our spirituality, and, long story short, much of that is to do with linking it to texts and having to follow those texts in order to benefit spiritually. I then said how this has affected our ability to really morally judge things, and relegate our principles to written law - which in itself is not rigid but interpretable, but it needs to be interpreted by lawyers/solicitors etc - power is away from teh individual, and witrh that responsibility.
hence a fall in social responsibility in general.
And this kinda touches on my mention of getting rid of parties. Why relegate elected peoples general principles for teh sake of party politics. Does it move things forward? i dont think so, more like it results in hold ups, back tracking, petty one-upmanship, electioneering, a whole host of evils.
Of course its crucial as to how its supported - a universal and uniform pot and distribution of campaighn funds for example.
A level playing field.
Word
Written by: Firepoise
We do need some system that will enable decisions to be made, though.
Or draw up policies that are flexible enough to be interpreted within a moral code.
Hehehehe. Fantasy politics
Wow - talk about a twilight zone moment.
I said the exact same thing last night, it started in the context of religion and moved onto law. BAsically I was saying how we've lost our spirituality, and, long story short, much of that is to do with linking it to texts and having to follow those texts in order to benefit spiritually. I then said how this has affected our ability to really morally judge things, and relegate our principles to written law - which in itself is not rigid but interpretable, but it needs to be interpreted by lawyers/solicitors etc - power is away from teh individual, and witrh that responsibility.
hence a fall in social responsibility in general.
And this kinda touches on my mention of getting rid of parties. Why relegate elected peoples general principles for teh sake of party politics. Does it move things forward? i dont think so, more like it results in hold ups, back tracking, petty one-upmanship, electioneering, a whole host of evils.
Of course its crucial as to how its supported - a universal and uniform pot and distribution of campaighn funds for example.
A level playing field.
Word
My Mummy Says Im Special
SILVER Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Posted:
In a sense that is sort of what the Geneva convention is...
to bad no one bothers with it.
Written by: Firepoise
We do need some system that will enable decisions to be made, though.
Or draw up policies that are flexible enough to be interpreted within a moral code.
Hehehehe. Fantasy politics
In a sense that is sort of what the Geneva convention is...
to bad no one bothers with it.
-v-
Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!
SILVER Member
Pooh-Bah
2,014 posts
Location: Galveston, TX, USA
Pooh-Bah
2,014 posts
Location: Galveston, TX, USA
Posted:
I think media involvement has gotten us in the mess we currently are in though. So, if media involvement is to a be a good idea, the media needs to go about it in a different fashion than it currently is.
I think media involvement has gotten us in the mess we currently are in though. So, if media involvement is to a be a good idea, the media needs to go about it in a different fashion than it currently is.
BRONZE Member
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Posted:
Ermmm. Maybe.
But you can't blame the failings of the administration on the media.
That's too easy, also inaccurate.
The media can be manipulated - it's how the government get their message across so well every day. It's a case of understanding your readership and telling them what they think they want to hear. But you have to understand enough about the process to be successful.
There is no way the mass media can be changed from how it reports the news. That is impossible.
But the media is also essential. It is the only way to bring your message to the masses.
Ermmm. Maybe.
But you can't blame the failings of the administration on the media.
That's too easy, also inaccurate.
The media can be manipulated - it's how the government get their message across so well every day. It's a case of understanding your readership and telling them what they think they want to hear. But you have to understand enough about the process to be successful.
There is no way the mass media can be changed from how it reports the news. That is impossible.
But the media is also essential. It is the only way to bring your message to the masses.
Getting to the other side
SILVER Member
Pooh-Bah
2,014 posts
Location: Galveston, TX, USA
Pooh-Bah
2,014 posts
Location: Galveston, TX, USA
Posted:
But you've mentioned elsewhere that the media can present the view they want the public to see.
The problem the states has at the moment is the view the media presents. There are many, many uninformed people here that believe what they read without questioning it or delving further into the concepts presented. My question is can we get the media to change that? To maybe make the public think about what they read?
But you've mentioned elsewhere that the media can present the view they want the public to see.
The problem the states has at the moment is the view the media presents. There are many, many uninformed people here that believe what they read without questioning it or delving further into the concepts presented. My question is can we get the media to change that? To maybe make the public think about what they read?
BRONZE Member
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Posted:
"But you've mentioned elsewhere that the media can present the view they want the public to see."
Yes, but both things can be true. The media are manipulated. And the media can manipulate. (Just to check, we are still talking about a fantasy revolution, aren't we?!)
But to answer your questions first of all...
“The problem the states has at the moment is the view the media presents.”
I disagree (surprisingly). The problem the US has is not simply the view that the media presents. You might have heard the saying ‘you can’t make a silk purse from a sow’s ear’?! It’s the same principle... poor administration, fostering an increase in suspicion and distrust, reflected through the media.
The media in the US are certainly not the best in the world, and their failings are huge and damaging, but they can’t be solely blamed for the state of America today. As I said, the media can be manipulated as well as they can manipulate, and the US government have manipulated the media very well by offering up juicy soundbites and headline-grabbing breaking news (the White House even have their news releases timed to fit in with the primetime news shows).
“There are many, many uninformed people here that believe what they read without questioning it or delving further into the concepts presented. My question is can we get the media to change that? To maybe make the public think about what they read? “
Yes there are many uninformed people in the states (and in the rest of the western world too). And that should be blamed on a failing education system which does not teach it’s children how to think for themselves. It is not, and has never been, the responsibility of the media to teach people how to think. Some things people need to work out for themselves.
It is the responsibility of the media to present the facts as they get them and present them as honestly as they can.
The suggestion of eventually creating a media that could encourage (but not teach) thought and discussion is one that would have to be part of the fantasy revolution (and is a good suggestion at that).
A groundswell of public opinion in favour of this new wave of thought would eventually impact on the media (there already are some excellent discussion programmes in the UK, and I’m sure in the states also), who would in turn encourage it, and bring it to the masses.
And then Pinky, we can take over the world. Muhhahahahahacough.
(Sorry if this went totally off on a random tangent... am just finished the nightshift and am totally shattered).
"But you've mentioned elsewhere that the media can present the view they want the public to see."
Yes, but both things can be true. The media are manipulated. And the media can manipulate. (Just to check, we are still talking about a fantasy revolution, aren't we?!)
But to answer your questions first of all...
“The problem the states has at the moment is the view the media presents.”
I disagree (surprisingly
). The problem the US has is not simply the view that the media presents. You might have heard the saying ‘you can’t make a silk purse from a sow’s ear’?! It’s the same principle... poor administration, fostering an increase in suspicion and distrust, reflected through the media.The media in the US are certainly not the best in the world, and their failings are huge and damaging, but they can’t be solely blamed for the state of America today. As I said, the media can be manipulated as well as they can manipulate, and the US government have manipulated the media very well by offering up juicy soundbites and headline-grabbing breaking news (the White House even have their news releases timed to fit in with the primetime news shows).
“There are many, many uninformed people here that believe what they read without questioning it or delving further into the concepts presented. My question is can we get the media to change that? To maybe make the public think about what they read? “
Yes there are many uninformed people in the states (and in the rest of the western world too). And that should be blamed on a failing education system which does not teach it’s children how to think for themselves. It is not, and has never been, the responsibility of the media to teach people how to think. Some things people need to work out for themselves.
It is the responsibility of the media to present the facts as they get them and present them as honestly as they can.
The suggestion of eventually creating a media that could encourage (but not teach) thought and discussion is one that would have to be part of the fantasy revolution (and is a good suggestion at that).
A groundswell of public opinion in favour of this new wave of thought would eventually impact on the media (there already are some excellent discussion programmes in the UK, and I’m sure in the states also), who would in turn encourage it, and bring it to the masses.
And then Pinky, we can take over the world. Muhhahahahahacough.
(Sorry if this went totally off on a random tangent... am just finished the nightshift and am totally shattered).
Getting to the other side
SILVER Member
old hand
768 posts
Location: San Francisco, California, USA
old hand
768 posts
Location: San Francisco, California, USA
Posted:
I hope I'm not in horrible violation of some thread/discussion protocol by responding to something several posts ago, but Vanize raised an interesting point here.
I think the key here is the hijacking of the Republican party by the Christian right. The Democrats, while ostensibly more labor and poor-people friendly, is also the party of gays and abortion. So while from an economic perspective it doesn't really make sense for labor to be Republican, in terms of social issues it makes perfect sense as many if not most of who we'd call the working-class tend to be socially conservative. And unfortunately, due to some of the factors raised in previous posts, re: education, media control, etc., these folks are voting against their own economic interests because they've come to believe that these social issues are more important to the well-being of their communities and "their" country. They're either not thinking through the full-agenda of the Republicans in power now, or are choosing to overlook how they're being screwed over to insure gay people can't get married and no-one can get a legal and safe abortion under any circumstance ever. It's ridiculous, but then so much of this country is...
Anyway there's my little interjection...carry on.
Written by: vanize
And for some reason labor seems to think they are republican, even though republicans would rather bend them over and ... well, you know what I mean. never understood that. they used to be democrats, but now they aren't I don't understand.
I hope I'm not in horrible violation of some thread/discussion protocol by responding to something several posts ago, but Vanize raised an interesting point here.
I think the key here is the hijacking of the Republican party by the Christian right. The Democrats, while ostensibly more labor and poor-people friendly, is also the party of gays and abortion. So while from an economic perspective it doesn't really make sense for labor to be Republican, in terms of social issues it makes perfect sense as many if not most of who we'd call the working-class tend to be socially conservative. And unfortunately, due to some of the factors raised in previous posts, re: education, media control, etc., these folks are voting against their own economic interests because they've come to believe that these social issues are more important to the well-being of their communities and "their" country. They're either not thinking through the full-agenda of the Republicans in power now, or are choosing to overlook how they're being screwed over to insure gay people can't get married and no-one can get a legal and safe abortion under any circumstance ever. It's ridiculous, but then so much of this country is...
Anyway there's my little interjection...carry on.
taken out of context i must seem so strange
~ ani di franco
BRONZE Member
Certainly confused
121 posts
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, United Kingdom
Certainly confused
121 posts
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, United Kingdom
Posted:
Quality point
Sadly, you can fool some of the people ALL of the time
No real redress of the social repercussions of the Cold War, and what helped foster them.
Regarding the media, more specifically changing it, while I agree the media is both manipulator and manipulatee(?!?!?), while we have powerful media empires with powerful private interests I think it is wise to recognise the massive repsonsiblity that involves, and how that responsibility may not always be taken as it should. I think it could take a great deal more care in how it informs us of events and issues - looking hard in the objectivity mirror to reduce simplistic/sensationalistic content/headlines which can polarise debate with simple vacuous terms/principles used as mantras by the ignorant. Im all for debate, differing opinions converging to solve difficult problems. But, if polarisation is being media fuelled, how are those poles ever going to meet?
I appreciate this is both naive and idealistic, but at the same time I cant accept it as eternally impossible. Achieving it isnt a simple matter of saying you want it to be so, and the next day your desire being granted. It will be tricky and difficult - but then weilding the responsibility and power of the media isnt something that can be taken lightly, and perhaps becaue it has for so long, that is why it is now difficult to change.
Its not about all in the media being corrupt, but rather that the industry as a whole is misguided. Just like wider society is misguided.
Id like to think that too is someting that could one day be overcome, otherwise whats the point?
Quality point
Sadly, you can fool some of the people ALL of the time
No real redress of the social repercussions of the Cold War, and what helped foster them.
Regarding the media, more specifically changing it, while I agree the media is both manipulator and manipulatee(?!?!?), while we have powerful media empires with powerful private interests I think it is wise to recognise the massive repsonsiblity that involves, and how that responsibility may not always be taken as it should. I think it could take a great deal more care in how it informs us of events and issues - looking hard in the objectivity mirror to reduce simplistic/sensationalistic content/headlines which can polarise debate with simple vacuous terms/principles used as mantras by the ignorant. Im all for debate, differing opinions converging to solve difficult problems. But, if polarisation is being media fuelled, how are those poles ever going to meet?
I appreciate this is both naive and idealistic, but at the same time I cant accept it as eternally impossible. Achieving it isnt a simple matter of saying you want it to be so, and the next day your desire being granted. It will be tricky and difficult - but then weilding the responsibility and power of the media isnt something that can be taken lightly, and perhaps becaue it has for so long, that is why it is now difficult to change.
Its not about all in the media being corrupt, but rather that the industry as a whole is misguided. Just like wider society is misguided.
Id like to think that too is someting that could one day be overcome, otherwise whats the point?
My Mummy Says Im Special
SILVER Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Posted:
RE: Spritie and Firepoise and the media.
I think Spritie is refering to the American media, while clearly Firepoise is defending the media in general.
Perhaps Firepoise has a different perspective given her education and employment background, but I strongly feel that the US press is no longer to be trusted when it comes to political issues. This is a combination of seeing how differently things are presented in the United states and abroad (now that I haven't been directly and constantly exposed to American media for a couple years), and a conversation I had about three years ago with a woman who quit working for a major network because she was fed up with all the restrictions the top level of her media corperation placed on what could and could not be said - and her insinuation that it was not them making those decisions.
I have firmly come to beleive that US media companies now fall into the same category of shady government big-business deals as Enron and Haliburton. They no longer exist to do the job they claim to do, but rather are just another way to make mega-bucks in whatever fashion possible, bending their ethics considerably whilst doing so.
I believe other media companies (the BBC for example) do a dramtically better job of actually being a free press. I am not saying the government is forcing the media companies in the US to do certain thing, but rather that those companies and their CEOs are being compelled by other means (economic and political value) offered by the mega-corperation that the US government has become.
So what I am saying is that the US media is not so much a puppet of the Bush administration, but rather more akin to a subsidiary branch of the american economic empire.
I'll repost an image here that I put up a couple months ago in another thread:
Non-Https Image Link
and excellent point blueboy about the mix and match of party values - exactly why we need an electorial and representative system that can really support more than two parties (a reform that would be next to impossible to impliment)
RE: Spritie and Firepoise and the media.
I think Spritie is refering to the American media, while clearly Firepoise is defending the media in general.
Perhaps Firepoise has a different perspective given her education and employment background, but I strongly feel that the US press is no longer to be trusted when it comes to political issues. This is a combination of seeing how differently things are presented in the United states and abroad (now that I haven't been directly and constantly exposed to American media for a couple years), and a conversation I had about three years ago with a woman who quit working for a major network because she was fed up with all the restrictions the top level of her media corperation placed on what could and could not be said - and her insinuation that it was not them making those decisions.
I have firmly come to beleive that US media companies now fall into the same category of shady government big-business deals as Enron and Haliburton. They no longer exist to do the job they claim to do, but rather are just another way to make mega-bucks in whatever fashion possible, bending their ethics considerably whilst doing so.
I believe other media companies (the BBC for example) do a dramtically better job of actually being a free press. I am not saying the government is forcing the media companies in the US to do certain thing, but rather that those companies and their CEOs are being compelled by other means (economic and political value) offered by the mega-corperation that the US government has become.
So what I am saying is that the US media is not so much a puppet of the Bush administration, but rather more akin to a subsidiary branch of the american economic empire.
I'll repost an image here that I put up a couple months ago in another thread:
Non-Https Image Link
and excellent point blueboy about the mix and match of party values - exactly why we need an electorial and representative system that can really support more than two parties (a reform that would be next to impossible to impliment)
-v-
Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!
BRONZE Member
Certainly confused
121 posts
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, United Kingdom
Certainly confused
121 posts
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, United Kingdom
Posted:
Quality cartoon.
Quality cartoon.
My Mummy Says Im Special
SILVER Member
Pooh-Bah
2,014 posts
Location: Galveston, TX, USA
Pooh-Bah
2,014 posts
Location: Galveston, TX, USA
Posted:
Thank you, vanize. Yes, I am referring to the american media which I feel is very different from that which Firepoise is discussing. For the most part, the american media ignores all international news. We are inundated with national and mostly local news at least 5 times a day. Each city has their own media (both newspaper reporters as well as TV reporters), and thus their own take on events. Yes, we do get some national stories from AP and Reuters that get displayed on TV and in the papers, but the majority of stories are locally based and reported. If a given city is more conservative, Catholic, or Republican, the news from that city will reflect those biased viewpoints (biased from my perspective since I'm none of those). Likewise, the more liberal areas will see more liberal news and the reporters will write their stories from that point of view because that is what their readers can identify with.
Thank you, vanize. Yes, I am referring to the american media which I feel is very different from that which Firepoise is discussing. For the most part, the american media ignores all international news. We are inundated with national and mostly local news at least 5 times a day. Each city has their own media (both newspaper reporters as well as TV reporters), and thus their own take on events. Yes, we do get some national stories from AP and Reuters that get displayed on TV and in the papers, but the majority of stories are locally based and reported. If a given city is more conservative, Catholic, or Republican, the news from that city will reflect those biased viewpoints (biased from my perspective since I'm none of those). Likewise, the more liberal areas will see more liberal news and the reporters will write their stories from that point of view because that is what their readers can identify with.
BRONZE Member
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Posted:
So then lads, after that lovely weekend, anyone inspired to great ideas about our revolution?!
So then lads, after that lovely weekend, anyone inspired to great ideas about our revolution?!
Getting to the other side
GOLD Member
Introverted
833 posts
Location: Norf London, United Kingdom
Introverted
833 posts
Location: Norf London, United Kingdom
Posted:
Bump for an eye opening article I just found....
Graph of money spent on renewable energy vs. cost of war in Iraq
Bump for an eye opening article I just found....
Graph of money spent on renewable energy vs. cost of war in Iraq
My Mind is a Ship
Emotions become the Waves
Soul is the Ocean
If a quizz is quizzical, what is a test?
SILVER Member
coming to a country near you
4,696 posts
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear, Australia
coming to a country near you
4,696 posts
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear, Australia
Posted:
bwahahahaha i was 17 when i wrote that!!!!!!!!
good times great memories.
so, yeah that graphs quite an eye opener, i laughed.
Written by: Mr Majestik
if you fear your enemy they controll you. war gives controll (stabs war)
bwahahahaha i was 17 when i wrote that!!!!!!!!
good times great memories.
so, yeah that graphs quite an eye opener, i laughed.
"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"
jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
Is Iraq vs an Energy Source really a viable comparison? Something like this is much more telling https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1866005/posts
If it hits it's $2.4T estimate it would be around $8,000 for every American..
It's worth noting that Death Toll wise, The entire Iraq war is less than 1/4 of a year from the peak of American KIA of the Vietnam War, and less than a single day during the peak of WWII.
If we don't have a choice and we're going to go to war, I'd rather spend money than lives....
Is Iraq vs an Energy Source really a viable comparison? Something like this is much more telling https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1866005/posts
If it hits it's $2.4T estimate it would be around $8,000 for every American..
It's worth noting that Death Toll wise, The entire Iraq war is less than 1/4 of a year from the peak of American KIA of the Vietnam War, and less than a single day during the peak of WWII.
If we don't have a choice and we're going to go to war, I'd rather spend money than lives....
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
Lurch - your link is bizarre to put it mildly...
Total expenditure for Iraq is listed as $405bn for when the war ended... As its currently 470bn and expected to end up far higher as the war hasn't ended I don't think it can really be considered a serious source to base judgements on.
Despite that it does show that allowing for inflation, Iraq (partway through) has already proved more expensive to the US taxpayer than Vietnam.
Basically the point Sambo Flux's post makes is that your military action means that your tax money which could have gone on health care, education, social security, community arts, renewable energy source etc etc has been spent on an unpopular unilateralist assault on another state.
While you may prefer to spend money than US lives on imperalist conquests I'd prefer it if the soldiers stayed at home and the money was spent on something more socially productive than blowing up foreigners and then handing no bid contracts to the administration's corporate buddies.
Lurch - your link is bizarre to put it mildly...
Total expenditure for Iraq is listed as $405bn for when the war ended... As its currently 470bn and expected to end up far higher as the war hasn't ended I don't think it can really be considered a serious source to base judgements on.
Despite that it does show that allowing for inflation, Iraq (partway through) has already proved more expensive to the US taxpayer than Vietnam.
Basically the point Sambo Flux's post makes is that your military action means that your tax money which could have gone on health care, education, social security, community arts, renewable energy source etc etc has been spent on an unpopular unilateralist assault on another state.
While you may prefer to spend money than US lives on imperalist conquests I'd prefer it if the soldiers stayed at home and the money was spent on something more socially productive than blowing up foreigners and then handing no bid contracts to the administration's corporate buddies.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
BRONZE Member
sanguine
382 posts
Location: sur, USA
sanguine
382 posts
Location: sur, USA
Posted:
*gasp*
Thank you. Now get out of my head!!
By this point, who exactly has ordered the deaths of more innocents: George W. Bush or Osama B. Ladin?
To me the biggest shame is the fallacy that the US is living in a democracy. Democracy is completely incompatible with Capitalism. One works for the idea of the good of the majority, while the other works to empower the individual at the expense of all others.
My god, they still have that program from welfare to work, which creates a system of indentured servitude for those who are on welfare and ensures that they will never have the opportunity or resources to leave.
GAHH! *mmbblbmbmellebe* I should never have read this thread. sorry for the rant.
Written by: dream
While you may prefer to spend money than US lives on imperalist conquests I'd prefer it if the soldiers stayed at home and the money was spent on something more socially productive than blowing up foreigners and then handing no bid contracts to the administration's corporate buddies.
*gasp*
Thank you. Now get out of my head!!
By this point, who exactly has ordered the deaths of more innocents: George W. Bush or Osama B. Ladin?
To me the biggest shame is the fallacy that the US is living in a democracy. Democracy is completely incompatible with Capitalism. One works for the idea of the good of the majority, while the other works to empower the individual at the expense of all others.
My god, they still have that program from welfare to work, which creates a system of indentured servitude for those who are on welfare and ensures that they will never have the opportunity or resources to leave.
GAHH! *mmbblbmbmellebe* I should never have read this thread. sorry for the rant.
"to a man whose only tool is a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail." Abraham Maslow
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
Woah woah woah, now lets talk rationally here. You guys are just mushing together drastically different topics.
I would definitely prefer that we weren't at war, but as long as we are I'll support the troops that are over there, and I'll give them whatever they need to get the job done, and be safe in the process. Could that money have been spent elsewhere? Probably, but the one way to doom any potential remotely positive outcome from this war is to abandon it, or cut the funding.
First off, that is not what I said at all, way to twist my words. If you want to cause more death, than go ahead and cut the war funding. It's not about funding "imperialist conquests," we've done far more good over there than you peace protesters are willing to admit to. If you know it and don't want to admit it, that's your own problem. If you have no idea about anything positive going on over there maybe you should take a second look at your sources of information and maybe make an effort to get another side to the story.
Non-Https Image Link
This generation. Our generation, has no concept of suffering. Iraq is bad? It's a speck on the map compared to Korea's 36,000 dead, or Vietnam's 58,000. Vietnam was bad? That's nothing compared to WWII's 400,000+ dead Americans.
Battle of the Bulge, about a month and a half of combat, 19,000 dead. Pearl Harbor? 2,403. Battle of Antietam, a single day, 4,808 dead. We're at war whether you like it or not, and there is no easy way out. You can't just stop and pull out without causing many many more deaths. So which would you prefer? Losing thousands of lives? or a few billion dollars? If you think we're over there for fun, just to waste money and use civilians as target practice than this conversation is pointless.
Woah woah woah, now lets talk rationally here. You guys are just mushing together drastically different topics.
Written by:
Basically the point Sambo Flux's post makes is that your military action means that your tax money which could have gone on health care, education, social security, community arts, renewable energy source etc etc has been spent on an unpopular unilateralist assault on another state.
I would definitely prefer that we weren't at war, but as long as we are I'll support the troops that are over there, and I'll give them whatever they need to get the job done, and be safe in the process. Could that money have been spent elsewhere? Probably, but the one way to doom any potential remotely positive outcome from this war is to abandon it, or cut the funding.
Written by:
While you may prefer to spend money than US lives on imperalist conquests I'd prefer it if the soldiers stayed at home and the money was spent on something more socially productive than blowing up foreigners and then handing no bid contracts to the administration's corporate buddies.
First off, that is not what I said at all, way to twist my words. If you want to cause more death, than go ahead and cut the war funding. It's not about funding "imperialist conquests," we've done far more good over there than you peace protesters are willing to admit to. If you know it and don't want to admit it, that's your own problem. If you have no idea about anything positive going on over there maybe you should take a second look at your sources of information and maybe make an effort to get another side to the story.
Written by:
By this point, who exactly has ordered the deaths of more innocents: George W. Bush or Osama B. Ladin?
Non-Https Image Link
This generation. Our generation, has no concept of suffering. Iraq is bad? It's a speck on the map compared to Korea's 36,000 dead, or Vietnam's 58,000. Vietnam was bad? That's nothing compared to WWII's 400,000+ dead Americans.
Battle of the Bulge, about a month and a half of combat, 19,000 dead. Pearl Harbor? 2,403. Battle of Antietam, a single day, 4,808 dead. We're at war whether you like it or not, and there is no easy way out. You can't just stop and pull out without causing many many more deaths. So which would you prefer? Losing thousands of lives? or a few billion dollars? If you think we're over there for fun, just to waste money and use civilians as target practice than this conversation is pointless.
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Sambo Flux, good point. My take is that if America invested the money spent on exploiting another country for their oil, on R&D of renewable energy, then they wouldn’t have an energy problem.
I posted this a while ago: What $1.2 Trillion Can Buy
Lurch, all you are saying, in your Cost of Iraq War Compared to Other US Wars argument, is that war is more acceptable now because less Americans are getting killed.
Well, America did have a choice! Unfortunately, that choice was to start an illegal war against another country to exploit that countries oil to run energy guzzling SUV’s.
Lurch, I don’t see any good coming out of the Iraq war. All I see is more violence, a civil war and an unprecedented escalation in terrorism world wide.
“Our generation, has no concept of suffering” is not an argument. There will never be a good time for America to get out of Iraq. May as well mark it up as another defeat and try and repair the damage by peaceful means.
Not for fun, for oil.
Get Real
Sambo Flux, good point. My take is that if America invested the money spent on exploiting another country for their oil, on R&D of renewable energy, then they wouldn’t have an energy problem.
I posted this a while ago: What $1.2 Trillion Can Buy
Lurch, all you are saying, in your Cost of Iraq War Compared to Other US Wars argument, is that war is more acceptable now because less Americans are getting killed.
Written by:
If we don't have a choice and we're going to go to war, I'd rather spend money than lives....
Well, America did have a choice! Unfortunately, that choice was to start an illegal war against another country to exploit that countries oil to run energy guzzling SUV’s.
Written by:
… If you want to cause more death, than go ahead and cut the war funding. It's not about funding "imperialist conquests," we've done far more good over there than you peace protesters are willing to admit to. If you know it and don't want to admit it, that's your own problem. If you have no idea about anything positive going on over there maybe you should take a second look at your sources of information and maybe make an effort to get another side to the story.
Lurch, I don’t see any good coming out of the Iraq war. All I see is more violence, a civil war and an unprecedented escalation in terrorism world wide.
“Our generation, has no concept of suffering” is not an argument. There will never be a good time for America to get out of Iraq. May as well mark it up as another defeat and try and repair the damage by peaceful means.
Written by:
If you think we're over there for fun, just to waste money and use civilians as target practice than this conversation is pointless.
Not for fun, for oil.
Get Real
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
Well if we're getting oil out of it we don't need to waste money on other energy sources
/sarcasm
Well if we're getting oil out of it we don't need to waste money on other energy sources
/sarcasm
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Touché.
Though, all humour aside, what’s going to happen when the supply of oil eventually runs out, as is possible in our lifetime ?
In many respects, America is protected from the real cost of fuel. I think this creates an expectation that oil will always be cheap and available.
As to a solution, the Sun already powers our planet, so there is no reason why we can’t develop the technology to power all energy needs.
Touché.
Though, all humour aside, what’s going to happen when the supply of oil eventually runs out, as is possible in our lifetime ?
In many respects, America is protected from the real cost of fuel. I think this creates an expectation that oil will always be cheap and available.
As to a solution, the Sun already powers our planet, so there is no reason why we can’t develop the technology to power all energy needs.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
What scares and disgusts me is that (similar to your government) you clearly have no regard for the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis. A recent survey put the figure at around 655,000. No one knows the exact figure because these deaths weren't considered to be worth counting (unlike American soldiers death) Their suffering is some kind of bizarre externality which cannot be compared to the suffering caused by the death of an american.
I would argue that those arguing with you here have a much clearer understanding of suffering than your own - that suffering is not something which is purely owned by Americans, and that when looking at the suffering caused by a conflict you should look beyond your own war casualties.
so around 655,000 dead Iraqis... Countless more maimed or wounded... Sectarian Sunni and Shia death squads who have both been armed and funded at different point by the inept occupiers... What in any other country would be called a civl war... Less hours of electricity per day (on average) for most Iraqis than before the was began... Armed contractors with no legal or military or legal guidelines slaughtering civillians with no chance of rebuke (Blackwater etc... and the US calls those held at Guantanamo illegal combatants)... Turkey wanting to invade the Kurdish North...
Thats a fantastic outcome for the Iraqi people.
On the other hand US and UK oil firms have spent the last year drawing up Iraq's new oil law...
https://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2132569.ece
So if we ignore the Iraqi suffering, I guess maybe you consider 4000 US soldiers dead and thousands maimed with a trillion dollars spent to be worthwhile for corporate access to the third biggest supply of oil going.
Personally i don't. Nor do I find this to be a positive turn of events
Written by:
Our generation, has no concept of suffering. Iraq is bad? It's a speck on the map compared to Korea's 36,000 dead, or Vietnam's 58,000. Vietnam was bad? That's nothing compared to WWII's 400,000+ dead Americans.
What scares and disgusts me is that (similar to your government) you clearly have no regard for the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis. A recent survey put the figure at around 655,000. No one knows the exact figure because these deaths weren't considered to be worth counting (unlike American soldiers death) Their suffering is some kind of bizarre externality which cannot be compared to the suffering caused by the death of an american.
I would argue that those arguing with you here have a much clearer understanding of suffering than your own - that suffering is not something which is purely owned by Americans, and that when looking at the suffering caused by a conflict you should look beyond your own war casualties.
Written by:
we've done far more good over there than you peace protesters are willing to admit to. If you know it and don't want to admit it, that's your own problem. If you have no idea about anything positive going on over there maybe you should take a second look at your sources of information and maybe make an effort to get another side to the story.
so around 655,000 dead Iraqis... Countless more maimed or wounded... Sectarian Sunni and Shia death squads who have both been armed and funded at different point by the inept occupiers... What in any other country would be called a civl war... Less hours of electricity per day (on average) for most Iraqis than before the was began... Armed contractors with no legal or military or legal guidelines slaughtering civillians with no chance of rebuke (Blackwater etc... and the US calls those held at Guantanamo illegal combatants)... Turkey wanting to invade the Kurdish North...
Thats a fantastic outcome for the Iraqi people.
On the other hand US and UK oil firms have spent the last year drawing up Iraq's new oil law...
Written by: Independent
The US government has been involved in drawing up the law, a draft of which has been seen by The Independent on Sunday. It would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972.
https://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2132569.ece
So if we ignore the Iraqi suffering, I guess maybe you consider 4000 US soldiers dead and thousands maimed with a trillion dollars spent to be worthwhile for corporate access to the third biggest supply of oil going.
Personally i don't. Nor do I find this to be a positive turn of events
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
GOLD Member
Introverted
833 posts
Location: Norf London, United Kingdom
Introverted
833 posts
Location: Norf London, United Kingdom
Posted:
The thing that bugs me is that the entire industrialised world is built on oil. Industrial growth and our economies rely on more oil production each year, especially with China and India using more and more each year. So demand for oil is rapidly increasing. Yet production follows a bell curve, both on a national level and globally. While we're on the "up" part, supply and demand both increase at a consistent rate, but as soon as supply tops out, and demand keeps growing, we have a very big economic problem.
All the indicators are that oil production is about to top out, or has already. Yes, we've only used half our oil resources, but the first half was the easy half. We're not running out, but the economic problems resulting from supply / demand imbalance are huge. Net result: economic turbulence, especially for oil based currencies (i.e. the dollar), rising oil prices, rising energy costs and resource grabs. Sound familiar?
Now, the ONLY solution to this is through developing sustainability, and renewable energy. There is no single silver bullet to fix this (despite the current obsession with biofuel and ethanol), so the solution has to come from investment and development in renewables, and education into sustainbale instead of grabbing for more oil.
But meh. That graph tells a different story.
It's interesting given the US's current interest in all things Iranian, and the current state of the US dollar, that Iran recently started trading their oil in euros rather than dollars. And Saddam was threatening the same before the Iraq war.
The thing that bugs me is that the entire industrialised world is built on oil. Industrial growth and our economies rely on more oil production each year, especially with China and India using more and more each year. So demand for oil is rapidly increasing. Yet production follows a bell curve, both on a national level and globally. While we're on the "up" part, supply and demand both increase at a consistent rate, but as soon as supply tops out, and demand keeps growing, we have a very big economic problem.
All the indicators are that oil production is about to top out, or has already. Yes, we've only used half our oil resources, but the first half was the easy half. We're not running out, but the economic problems resulting from supply / demand imbalance are huge. Net result: economic turbulence, especially for oil based currencies (i.e. the dollar), rising oil prices, rising energy costs and resource grabs. Sound familiar?
Now, the ONLY solution to this is through developing sustainability, and renewable energy. There is no single silver bullet to fix this (despite the current obsession with biofuel and ethanol), so the solution has to come from investment and development in renewables, and education into sustainbale instead of grabbing for more oil.
But meh. That graph tells a different story.
It's interesting given the US's current interest in all things Iranian, and the current state of the US dollar, that Iran recently started trading their oil in euros rather than dollars. And Saddam was threatening the same before the Iraq war.
My Mind is a Ship
Emotions become the Waves
Soul is the Ocean
If a quizz is quizzical, what is a test?
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
The only sane, long term solution is what you described. On the other hand, guaranteeing access to existing markets through military force allied with investment in coal (of which there is still an awful lot) are the alternatives.
In terms of detrimental impact to the social ecology (through war and suffering) and environmental ecology (through anthropogenic climate change - which acts as a catalyst for further war and suffering - see Darfur) this is not a sane solution...
At least not in the long term - and therein lies part of the problem... Powerful people - be they politicians or corporate CEO's rarely seem to think about the implications for people in other parts of the world - never mind people in 50 years time. By that that time most of them will be dead so it will not effect them, so they don't care. Similarly populations do not currently elect govenments with 50 year plans - instead you end up with politicians who try and bury problems for a few years so that the next (opposition) government has to deal with them (see US balance of trade deficit or UK pensions black hole). Similarly corporations are required to operate for shareholder profit - not the general good of the world's population - present or future. So unsurprisingly - they don't.
Until major structural changes in the way our societies maintain themselves are implemented, the adoption of ecologically and socially sane policies seem a long way off.
Written by: Sambo Flux
Now, the ONLY solution to this is through developing sustainability, and renewable energy.
The only sane, long term solution is what you described. On the other hand, guaranteeing access to existing markets through military force allied with investment in coal (of which there is still an awful lot) are the alternatives.
In terms of detrimental impact to the social ecology (through war and suffering) and environmental ecology (through anthropogenic climate change - which acts as a catalyst for further war and suffering - see Darfur) this is not a sane solution...
At least not in the long term - and therein lies part of the problem... Powerful people - be they politicians or corporate CEO's rarely seem to think about the implications for people in other parts of the world - never mind people in 50 years time. By that that time most of them will be dead so it will not effect them, so they don't care. Similarly populations do not currently elect govenments with 50 year plans - instead you end up with politicians who try and bury problems for a few years so that the next (opposition) government has to deal with them (see US balance of trade deficit or UK pensions black hole). Similarly corporations are required to operate for shareholder profit - not the general good of the world's population - present or future. So unsurprisingly - they don't.
Until major structural changes in the way our societies maintain themselves are implemented, the adoption of ecologically and socially sane policies seem a long way off.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
Seriously you don't have a clue what is going on over there. They are building good roads and bringing clean drinking water to areas that only had disease ridding wells and waterways. They bring school supplies and toys.
War is not pretty. But we are not just over there as evil occupiers
Seriously you don't have a clue what is going on over there. They are building good roads and bringing clean drinking water to areas that only had disease ridding wells and waterways. They bring school supplies and toys.
War is not pretty. But we are not just over there as evil occupiers
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
According to an Oxfam report into conditions in Iraq published this summer 70% of Iraqi children lack access to clean drinking water. Before the US invasion the figure was 50%.
https://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL304813620070730
Written by: FaithinFire
They are building good roads and bringing clean drinking water to areas that only had disease ridding wells and waterways.
According to an Oxfam report into conditions in Iraq published this summer 70% of Iraqi children lack access to clean drinking water. Before the US invasion the figure was 50%.
https://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL304813620070730
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
Oh I completely agree stone, but I don't think an argument about our fossil fuels and energy needs has anything to do with arguing about the cost of Iraq.
I never said that at all. There were over 20,000,000 Soviets killed in WWII and over 7 Million Germans, both civilian and military. 18% of Poland's population was killed. This generation has never seen anything *close* to suffering on that scale. As I said before, your concept of how bad it can actually be is drastically skewed and misguided. It's funny that you site 655,000 dead, when the British estimate was roughly 50,000. The study that came up with 655K was not exactly accurate, and very controversial, similar to how people were claiming there were tens of thousands dead from Hurricane Katrina.. But regardless, the potential ~700,000 dead in the past 4 years doesn't even equal a month of heavy war. Is it sad? Yes. Is it tragic? Yes. Is it nessecary? That remains to be seen. But is it as bad as it could be? Hell no.
Whether you want to believe it or not the soldiers over there are there for good. They have all volunteered to be there, and are fighting for what they believe is right. You call them inept, but I would say they aren't being allowed to perform their job to the best of their ability because they are constantly being underminded by people like yourself tieing one hand behind their back. This war was muzzled from the start when they were told to do a job, but not given the tools they asked for. I don't want us to be at war any more than anyone else does. But the fact is we ARE at war. I understand you're not American so you don't have much at stake personally, but why on earth would you want to hinder any force, when all it will do is cause more death?
If this is a war for oil, than why have our prices done nothing but raise? There is much more on the plate than some fossil fuels, you're blinding yourself if you think that's what this is all about.
There is a lot more I could say, but I've got to get ready for the holidays I'll be back sunday....
Oh I completely agree stone, but I don't think an argument about our fossil fuels and energy needs has anything to do with arguing about the cost of Iraq.
Written by:
What scares and disgusts me is that (similar to your government) you clearly have no regard for the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis. A recent survey put the figure at around 655,000. No one knows the exact figure because these deaths weren't considered to be worth counting (unlike American soldiers death) Their suffering is some kind of bizarre externality which cannot be compared to the suffering caused by the death of an american.
I never said that at all. There were over 20,000,000 Soviets killed in WWII and over 7 Million Germans, both civilian and military. 18% of Poland's population was killed. This generation has never seen anything *close* to suffering on that scale. As I said before, your concept of how bad it can actually be is drastically skewed and misguided. It's funny that you site 655,000 dead, when the British estimate was roughly 50,000. The study that came up with 655K was not exactly accurate, and very controversial, similar to how people were claiming there were tens of thousands dead from Hurricane Katrina.. But regardless, the potential ~700,000 dead in the past 4 years doesn't even equal a month of heavy war. Is it sad? Yes. Is it tragic? Yes. Is it nessecary? That remains to be seen. But is it as bad as it could be? Hell no.
Whether you want to believe it or not the soldiers over there are there for good. They have all volunteered to be there, and are fighting for what they believe is right. You call them inept, but I would say they aren't being allowed to perform their job to the best of their ability because they are constantly being underminded by people like yourself tieing one hand behind their back. This war was muzzled from the start when they were told to do a job, but not given the tools they asked for. I don't want us to be at war any more than anyone else does. But the fact is we ARE at war. I understand you're not American so you don't have much at stake personally, but why on earth would you want to hinder any force, when all it will do is cause more death?
If this is a war for oil, than why have our prices done nothing but raise? There is much more on the plate than some fossil fuels, you're blinding yourself if you think that's what this is all about.
There is a lot more I could say, but I've got to get ready for the holidays I'll be back sunday....
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
So because less than 20 million Iraqis have died things are ok? The Iraqi population is only 27 million???
If you're saying that i can't imagine how horrible it must have been to have lived in Stalingrad in 1942/3 then I totally agree. I can't. Equally I can't imagine how horrible to be to live in Iraq now. I have no experience of having my country invaded. None of my family (for a couple of generations) have been killed by an invading army. I have access to clean water. I have electricity whenever i want want it rather than for only a few hours a day. I could go on and on but I see little point...
I can however say that I can imagine that the living in the circumstances listed above would suck. Maybe not as much as Stalingrad, but that isn't much of a baseline. I can also safely say that I hope I never have to live in those circumstances. And that I'm not enamoured by any group of people who would enforce those conditions on another group. As my government are a part of the Iraqi invasion I'm fairly unhappy (to put it mildly) about it.
You keep saying this - but have stopped short of ever qualifying that statement. Despite her input only being a few lines long Faithinfire at least managed to supply a logical and concrete reason for why she believes the US have been a positive force in Iraq that they have been/are 'bringing clean drinking water to areas that only had disease ridding wells and waterways.' However this reason flies in the face of the fact that less Iraqis have access to clean water now than they did before the invasion. So far your argument seems to be that because less people have died in the US invasion of Iraq than in other WW2 it's all okay.
peak oil. increasing demand (especially from China). concerns over relations with major oil producing nations (such as Iran and Venezuela). concerns that OPEC nations have massively over estimated reserves in order to control oil prices. lack of reserve production capacity (something like 1/6th of what it was a few years back).
These are but a few of the complex reasons behind the current price of oil.
??? The 655,000 figure comes from Lancet. You know, the British medical journal. As I've already stated - no one has bothered counting the iraqi civillian toll so an exact number doesn't exist. The lowest figure which exists is the Iraq Body Count's 77,305 - 84,222. However these are all deaths which are reported in the media and consequently miss large numbers of unreported casualties. So where did 50,000 come from?
As a government you have a certain amount of money you have raised through taxes. You can spend this money once and once only. The options outlined in this thread have been 1) spend it on invading Iraq. 2) spend it on sustainable energy technologies/social services. As this money can only be spent once then only one of the two alternatives can be realised. This isn't exactly rocket science.
Written by: lurch
There were over 20,000,000 Soviets killed in WWII and over 7 Million Germans, both civilian and military. 18% of Poland's population was killed. This generation has never seen anything *close* to suffering on that scale. As I said before, your concept of how bad it can actually be is drastically skewed and misguided
So because less than 20 million Iraqis have died things are ok? The Iraqi population is only 27 million???
If you're saying that i can't imagine how horrible it must have been to have lived in Stalingrad in 1942/3 then I totally agree. I can't. Equally I can't imagine how horrible to be to live in Iraq now. I have no experience of having my country invaded. None of my family (for a couple of generations) have been killed by an invading army. I have access to clean water. I have electricity whenever i want want it rather than for only a few hours a day. I could go on and on but I see little point...
I can however say that I can imagine that the living in the circumstances listed above would suck. Maybe not as much as Stalingrad, but that isn't much of a baseline. I can also safely say that I hope I never have to live in those circumstances. And that I'm not enamoured by any group of people who would enforce those conditions on another group. As my government are a part of the Iraqi invasion I'm fairly unhappy (to put it mildly) about it.
Written by: Lurch
Whether you want to believe it or not the soldiers over there are there for good
You keep saying this - but have stopped short of ever qualifying that statement. Despite her input only being a few lines long Faithinfire at least managed to supply a logical and concrete reason for why she believes the US have been a positive force in Iraq that they have been/are 'bringing clean drinking water to areas that only had disease ridding wells and waterways.' However this reason flies in the face of the fact that less Iraqis have access to clean water now than they did before the invasion. So far your argument seems to be that because less people have died in the US invasion of Iraq than in other WW2 it's all okay.
Written by: Lurch
If this is a war for oil, than why have our prices done nothing but raise?
peak oil. increasing demand (especially from China). concerns over relations with major oil producing nations (such as Iran and Venezuela). concerns that OPEC nations have massively over estimated reserves in order to control oil prices. lack of reserve production capacity (something like 1/6th of what it was a few years back).
These are but a few of the complex reasons behind the current price of oil.
Written by:
It's funny that you site 655,000 dead, when the British estimate was roughly 50,000.
??? The 655,000 figure comes from Lancet. You know, the British medical journal. As I've already stated - no one has bothered counting the iraqi civillian toll so an exact number doesn't exist. The lowest figure which exists is the Iraq Body Count's 77,305 - 84,222. However these are all deaths which are reported in the media and consequently miss large numbers of unreported casualties. So where did 50,000 come from?
Written by:
I don't think an argument about our fossil fuels and energy needs has anything to do with arguing about the cost of Iraq.
As a government you have a certain amount of money you have raised through taxes. You can spend this money once and once only. The options outlined in this thread have been 1) spend it on invading Iraq. 2) spend it on sustainable energy technologies/social services. As this money can only be spent once then only one of the two alternatives can be realised. This isn't exactly rocket science.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com