That's the point, part of the two trillion or however much the cost is being pumped back into the US' economy because the branches are in fact in the United States.

Couldnt you say that about not only the entire war expenditure, but also about any government spending?Yes.

 

Political debates don't come from whether or not public and private interests pump money into the American economy. It's about which one does it better, in the end.

 

Yes, but you need to take into account a few other things. First, the kind of long-term effect that spending has on the economy. For example, if you spend 2 trillion dollars on education rather than to rebuild another country (and paying US contractors to do that) you're going to have different effects. Those 2 trillion dollars spent in education will probably generate a lot more benefits (more educated population, more efficient workers, etc.) for us than spending that money to reconstruct another country..

And how do you suggest we fund education on a federal level?

 

Not commenting on the war one way or another, because quite frankly I don't care about the war anymore, but how do you propose the government actually spend the money on education?

Often times we forget about the true cost of war when debating this issue. Of course when Congress basically writes you a blank check, you had to assume this just might happen here.

 

You have to take a step back and wonder this:

 

 

Do the benefits of this war exceed the cost of the war?

 

If it does then we have done well with this, else the war has been a waste.

 

Unfortuantely, we are essentially split down the middle on this issue.

I don't see this war resulting in many benefits, either for the Iraqis, or for our long-term security. We did exactly what Osama predicted: We invaded a sovereign Arab nation that posed no threat to us whatsoever. He had said in the past that when this happens, it means the beginning of a Western war against Islam. So, basically, we helped him and his cause out.

 

"Freeing" this country has cost 2200 U.S. lives, and at least 30,000 Iraqi lives. Bush recently admitted to that figure, but my guess is, it's the most conservative number they felt they could admit.

 

I think the most ironic thing about this war is, instead of removing the "terrorist threat" from this country, as the President said we were doing, we actually created a haven and new training ground for terrorists, where they can fight Americans in their backyard, and use the Iraqi cause to gain new support from people in the region. There was very little terrorism in Iraq prior to the war, because most terrorist leaders hated Saddam's religious repression of his people, and refused to do business with him. The claims that there was an alliance between Al Qaeda and Iraq are ridiculous. Osama hated Saddam, almost as much as the West. He was probably as happy to see him overthrown as anyone else.

 

It's pretty disheartening when you realize that in 2002, we had Al Qaeda essentially on the ropes. Most of their top leadership had been killed or captured, we had Bin Laden surrounded in the Eastern mountains of Afghanistan, and their funding had been mostly cut. However, rather than finish them off, pleas from the CIA to send in more troops to cut off Bin Laden's escape from Tora Bora went unheeded, and a new war in Iraq shifted military resources away from Afghanistan, allowing the remaining Al Qaeda operatives to escape the country. In addition, the Taliban has been allowed to survive, and is still a threat to the country.

 

If we really want to hurt terrorism, we need to crack down on Saudi Arabia, and force them to get their princes and other rich leaders to stop funding terrorists from their own pockets. We have to cut off as much terrorist funding as possible. There also needs to be negotiation with European states such as Britain, France, and Germany, to get them to crack down on the growing number of terrorist cells within their nations. Britain and Germany have produced many of the worst terrorist cells, including the one that shoe bomber Richard Reid came from, the one that bombed the London Underground last year, and the cell that attacked us on 9/11, which had German ties.

 

We also need to keep close watch on Syria and Iran, two countries that have been major backers of terrorism over the years. According to a few former CIA officials, Iran was basically in an undeclared war against the U.S. from the 1980's to the mid-1990's, where they used terrorist groups to attack our bases in the region (Beirut embassy bombing, Beirut Marine barrack bombings). We just never fully realized it at the time. I also believe that there was at least Iranian support of the first World Trade Center attack.

If we really want to hurt terrorism, we need to crack down on Saudi Arabia, and force them to get their princes and other rich leaders to stop funding terrorists from their own pockets.

 

 

This touches on one of the toughest issue in U.S foreign policy. The epicenters of Radical Islam is Saudi Arabia and Pakistan but they are also are two most important allies in the region. Saudi Wahabi clerics establish and fund madrasas in Pakistan while pirs in Pakistan in turn brainwash and groom Muslims to be badass Jihad warriors destined to die for Allah. Despite that our need for Saudi oil and Pakistani troops and cooperation outweighs the system that is indoctrinating and preparing Muslim men to defend Dar-al-Islam.

 

Also too, bin Laden is scoping out our actions in Iraq and spinning it in a way as to harken back to the time when Arabs were at the mercy of Byzantium and Persia, before they had Islam to unite them and make them a regional power. Bin Laden's allusions to the period of Muhammed and the first Ummah has a tremendous impact on even moderate Muslims and makes it an extremely difficult task to crack down on the country that houses Islam's two holiest cities.

That's the point, part of the two trillion or however much the cost is being pumped back into the US' economy because the branches are in fact in the United States.

Couldnt you say that about not only the entire war expenditure, but also about any government spending?Yes.

 

Political debates don't come from whether or not public and private interests pump money into the American economy. It's about which one does it better, in the end.

 

Yes, but you need to take into account a few other things. First, the kind of long-term effect that spending has on the economy. For example, if you spend 2 trillion dollars on education rather than to rebuild another country (and paying US contractors to do that) you're going to have different effects. Those 2 trillion dollars spent in education will probably generate a lot more benefits (more educated population, more efficient workers, etc.) for us than spending that money to reconstruct another country..

And how do you suggest we fund education on a federal level?

 

Not commenting on the war one way or another, because quite frankly I don't care about the war anymore, but how do you propose the government actually spend the money on education?

 

I was just using education as an example. All I was saying was that not all spending is created equal even if the raw numbers are the same. Two trillion dollars in spending in one area will have a different impact than two trillion dollars in spending in another area. My point is that spending this much money on a war is not as productive long-term for the country as it is spending it in other areas. Another example is spending this money in improving access to health care for children. Long term we'll see more economic benefits out of that - healthier children means less crime and children that learn more (thus a more productive population in a decade or so).

Who provides armor, weapons, and ammunition to the US military? I believe weapons manufacturers are all US based (safe assumption). Is it a coincidence that the US has never really been at peace, EVER, since the second world war? Where there no benefits in bombing the sh*t out of (then) Jugoslavia?

 

You need to keep that section of the industry rolling...need to consume to produce.

 

I can't say details for the US, but I know for a fact that Italy, up to 10 years ago, was the #1 distributer worldwide of anti-personal land mines (that has since stopped due to some pact...forgot the name).

I'm sure the US has similar specializations.

 

Either way, war is good for the big business economy.

Yes.

 

Political debates don't come from whether or not public and private interests pump money into the American economy. It's about which one does it better, in the end.

 

 

It's an interesting discussion.. Even if private infusion of tax dollars into the economy is more effective, which Im not so sure of, one could still fund a lot of non-military spending programs through private conduits. So it seems to me that this defense of war spending, as originated by Reagan, has always been a defense of government spending to develop the economy.

 

Your next questions is another example. The federal government could fund education by building brand new high tech schools in bad education districts. This would be government spending that would lead to jobs in construction, ie through private conduits.

 

This touches on one of the toughest issue in U.S foreign policy. The epicenters of Radical Islam is Saudi Arabia and Pakistan but they are also are two most important allies in the region.

 

 

It does beg a very important and often undebated question. IMO it undermines the simple, often black and white responses that we hear when discussing the war on terror. Can we really say we have made much net progress?

 

You need to keep that section of the industry rolling...need to consume to produce.

 

Ah yes the military industrial complex. So should we say peace should not be strived for? Do we always need an enemy because of the need to produce weapons?

All I am saying is, based on little knowledge on the subject, that there are profits made from war activities.

 

We should strive for peace, but I don't think those in power truly strive for peace.

All I am saying is, based on little knowledge on the subject, that there are profits made from war activities.

 

We should strive for peace, but I don't think those in power truly strive for peace.

 

 

That sickens me.

Who provides armor, weapons, and ammunition to the US military? I believe weapons manufacturers are all US based (safe assumption). Is it a coincidence that the US has never really been at peace, EVER, since the second world war? Where there no benefits in bombing the sh*t out of (then) Jugoslavia?

 

You need to keep that section of the industry rolling...need to consume to produce.

 

I can't say details for the US, but I know for a fact that Italy, up to 10 years ago, was the #1 distributer worldwide of anti-personal land mines (that has since stopped due to some pact...forgot the name).

I'm sure the US has similar specializations.

 

Either way, war is good for the big business economy.

 

 

The Beretta 92FS/M9 is the standard issue sidearm for the entire U.S. military and comes from Pietro Beretta, an Italian company for more than 500 years.

Who provides armor, weapons, and ammunition to the US military? I believe weapons manufacturers are all US based (safe assumption). Is it a coincidence that the US has never really been at peace, EVER, since the second world war? Where there no benefits in bombing the sh*t out of (then) Jugoslavia?

 

You need to keep that section of the industry rolling...need to consume to produce.

 

I can't say details for the US, but I know for a fact that Italy, up to 10 years ago, was the #1 distributer worldwide of anti-personal land mines (that has since stopped due to some pact...forgot the name).

I'm sure the US has similar specializations.

 

Either way, war is good for the big business economy.

 

The Beretta 92FS/M9 is the standard issue sidearm for the entire U.S. military and comes from Pietro Beretta, an Italian company for more than 500 years.

There are also immense profits for companies to make in the period after a war.

 

 

War itself isnt the only way to jump start an economy....but bringing soliders home after the war etc does much the same...see WWII

 

 

of course it helps if you are winning said war.....

 

 

but still point remains.

Your next questions is another example. The federal government could fund education by building brand new high tech schools in bad education districts. This would be government spending that would lead to jobs in construction, ie through private conduits.

Well my point was more along the lines of that education isn't really something that can be looked at Federally. Somethings can be done, sure, but it's more of a state issue. The only thing the Feds can do is throw money at it and see what happens. They can't really follow what the money they throw does, and in turn they can't make sure that what they do makes a difference. Throwing money at any sort of problem has never been the most effective possible solution. This goes for education and for almost anything.

 

That was more of my point, really. But that's a discussion for a separate thread.

The Beretta 92FS/M9 is the standard issue sidearm for the entire U.S. military and comes from Pietro Beretta, an Italian company for more than 500 years.

Who provides armor, weapons, and ammunition to the US military? I believe weapons manufacturers are all US based (safe assumption). Is it a coincidence that the US has never really been at peace, EVER, since the second world war? Where there no benefits in bombing the sh*t out of (then) Jugoslavia?

 

You need to keep that section of the industry rolling...need to consume to produce.

 

I can't say details for the US, but I know for a fact that Italy, up to 10 years ago, was the #1 distributer worldwide of anti-personal land mines (that has since stopped due to some pact...forgot the name).

I'm sure the US has similar specializations.

 

Either way, war is good for the big business economy.

 

The Beretta 92FS/M9 is the standard issue sidearm for the entire U.S. military and comes from Pietro Beretta, an Italian company for more than 500 years.

Who provides armor, weapons, and ammunition to the US military? I believe weapons manufacturers are all US based (safe assumption). Is it a coincidence that the US has never really been at peace, EVER, since the second world war? Where there no benefits in bombing the sh*t out of (then) Jugoslavia?

 

You need to keep that section of the industry rolling...need to consume to produce.

 

I can't say details for the US, but I know for a fact that Italy, up to 10 years ago, was the #1 distributer worldwide of anti-personal land mines (that has since stopped due to some pact...forgot the name).

I'm sure the US has similar specializations.

 

Either way, war is good for the big business economy.

 

The Beretta 92FS/M9 is the standard issue sidearm for the entire U.S. military and comes from Pietro Beretta, an Italian company for more than 500 years.

Who provides armor, weapons, and ammunition to the US military? I believe weapons manufacturers are all US based (safe assumption). Is it a coincidence that the US has never really been at peace, EVER, since the second world war? Where there no benefits in bombing the sh*t out of (then) Jugoslavia?

 

You need to keep that section of the industry rolling...need to consume to produce.

 

I can't say details for the US, but I know for a fact that Italy, up to 10 years ago, was the #1 distributer worldwide of anti-personal land mines (that has since stopped due to some pact...forgot the name).

I'm sure the US has similar specializations.

 

Either way, war is good for the big business economy.

 

The Beretta 92FS/M9 is the standard issue sidearm for the entire U.S. military and comes from Pietro Beretta, an Italian company for more than 500 years.