The cost of war

bonkey

Interesting article in the nyt which I was pointed at recently.

When one looks at it, the costs - although not necessarily spot on - are staggering. OK - they're spread over some time, but it does beg an interesting point...

When Americans say that they support an action such as this....would they do so if given an up-front ballpark of how much they would pay for it?

OK - I know the maths are utterly wrong when averaged over households - but think about it....

Version 1) Should America go to war with X, in order to do Y?
Version 2) Is your household willing to stump up 10 grand or more in order for America to go to war with X, in order to accomplish Y?

Made me think....especially cause I've been recently reading The End of Oil, where one of the major issues the author sees is the cost of trying to move away from an oil-based economy...and how it would run into the trillions over the coming decades. Apparently, a trillion isn't that unthinkable a price to pay any more.

jc

netwhizkid

Why america spends a trillion on war is beyond me, They are capitalists right ? Spending a trillion on war with iraq and afghanistan is damaging their economy, that money could create at least a billion capitalists like themselves by taking nearly all if not all the 3rd world out of poverty and transforming their economies. But where could the cheap labour be found then ? Mars maybe ? America is interested in keeping their pockets well lined and to hell with those starving and dying of diseases that what we spend on a saturday night out could save several people from death. Don't blame the american people they are a slave race brainwashed by corrupt media, blame bush and his oil-buddies elite. Do a bit of oragami with the $10 and $20 bill and you will see what i'm on about. They complain that gas costs $2.80 a gallon that half what we pay goddamn it. If bush could make a buck for himself and his buddies he'd spend the trillion of public (borrowed money) (America is heavily in debt) and do it. This costs if true which i don't doubt, will be equal to the whole cost of WW2 to all sides. I know that the Iraq war is costing almost $3,000 every second anyway. In the time it took me to write this at least a million people could have had their lives transformed with what the war has cost in this space of time. Bush huh ? Don't blame the yankee rednecks they are just funny and adorable, we'd vote for bush too if we were brainwashed into thinking he's nothing short of a cuddly teddy bear also.

marco murphy

Can you provide sufficient date backing up your claim america is in dept?

shotamoose

bonkey wrote:

When one looks at it, the costs - although not necessarily spot on - are staggering.

Yep. Reminds me of a quote I read recently which was attributed to Osama bin Laden. Basically he said something along the lines of "We will bankrupt you [the Americans] just like we did the Russians in Afghanistan". The idea being that he welcomes a full-scale war in Afghanistan, Iraq or wherever else, because he wants the US to throw everything it has at him so that, when that fails, the defeat will be all the more bitter.

Or something. I think he may be underestimating the depth of America's pockets, or Bush's willingness to spend Americans' money and their willingness to let him.

netwhizkid

Poblachtach wrote:

Can you provide sufficient date backing up your claim america is in dept?

I presume you meant debt so try
this i know it looks a bit conspiracy like but it but the old brain thinking. A quick google search will reveel more for you.

Dimitri

Time 22nd Aug 05 wrote:

When Zapp learned of his sons death, it only strenghened his robust support for the war. "It made me prouder to be an American" he says "and prouder to have known my son for the 30 years he was on this earth".

When this is the strenght of resolve of some Americans i fear plunging the whole world into economic ruin, (which if this "smoke 'em out" behaviour is continued will happen), is the least of their worries.

Hobbes

Poblachtach wrote:

Can you provide sufficient date backing up your claim america is in dept?

You mean data and debt?

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

The US oil reserves were also in trouble just before the Iraq war. Would be intrested to know what they are at now.

Dimitri

Hobbes wrote:

You mean data and debt?

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

The US oil reserves were also in trouble just before the Iraq war. Would be intrested to know what they are at now.

Thats a scary figure, if America's economy goes bust Irelands will blown back to the stone age and with so many people employed in the service industry we could end up in a vicious cycle of unemployment.

Dimitri

Dimitri wrote:

Thats a scary figure, if America's economy goes bust Irelands will blown back to the stone age and with so many people employed in the service industry we could end up in a vicious cycle of unemployment.

Actually what would be as worrying for the Irish Economy would be the Growth of the German Italian and French ones.
Our interest rates are very very low due to the bust in their Economy.
Those low rates are largely financing our boom.

Time Magazine

netwhizkid wrote:

Why america spends a trillion on war is beyond me

only to go on to say that...
America is interested in keeping their pockets well lined

They're mutually inclusive .

They are capitalists right ? Spending a trillion on war with iraq and afghanistan is damaging their economy.

Pure bull. That money doesn't just disappear. You give Lockhead Martin $1bn it filters to its employees, supplies and shareholders; all predominantly American. It's an injection into the economy that will recover much of its debt through tax revenue ex post.

that money could create at least a billion capitalists like themselves by taking nearly all if not all the 3rd world out of poverty and transforming their economies. But where could the cheap labour be found then?

To quote Prof. Mankiw, of Harvard, and recently Bush's main economic advisor: "Outsourcing is good for America in the long-run". Cheap labour doesn't really come from Africa, and America certainly doesn't want it itself. Try China.

and to hell with those starving and dying of diseases that what we spend on a saturday night out could save several people from death.

We're the same. I spent €12 on deodorant and Clearasil today, that would save a life if I gave it to GOAL or Trocaire.

They complain that gas costs $2.80 a gallon that half what we pay goddamn it.

Yep but the relative rise is steeper, and the good itself is only more expensive here because of tax.

America is heavily in debt

When I heard that the money spent on tax enforcment in America is equal to about half of Government's Budget deficit (which is huge), I kinda cared less about their debt. (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=S%27%29%28L%2APA%3F%2A%21%40%23%3C%0A - paragraph 5)

I know that the Iraq war is costing almost $3,000 every second anyway. In the time it took me to write this at least a million people could have had their lives transformed with what the war has cost in this space of time.

What about, had it worked et al, peace for Middle Easterners?

Bush huh ? Don't blame the yankee rednecks they are just funny and adorable, we'd vote for bush too if we were brainwashed into thinking he's nothing short of a cuddly teddy bear also.

Nice faith in democracy there. I like to think America aren't brainwashed, they just don't have their priorities in the same place as ours.

Ajnag

When I heard that the money spent on tax enforcment in America is equal to about half of Government's Budget deficit (which is huge), I kinda cared less about their debt.

Hmm, according to that debt clock the debt per capita is somewhere around 26'000, Now when we consider a gdp per capita of 33'000, One has to wonder what the implications are when debt per capita reach's gdp per capita. Probably not good either way.
Also watch china get increasingly cocky in relation to us relation's, remember pre 9/11 the china/america recon plane debacle? How things have changed, considering the amount of dollar reserves held in china and south east china there are serious implications for the us in the future.

I just hope the world economy will have reduced dependance on the american economy by then.

Oh and china's unrestricted warfare docterine seems to be in full swing....
http://government.zdnet.com/?p=1665

mycroft

netwhizkid wrote:

Why america spends a trillion on war is beyond me, They are capitalists right ? Spending a trillion on war with iraq and afghanistan is damaging their economy, that money could create at least a billion capitalists like themselves by taking nearly all if not all the 3rd world out of poverty and transforming their economies. But where could the cheap labour be found then ? Mars maybe ? America is interested in keeping their pockets well lined and to hell with those starving and dying of diseases that what we spend on a saturday night out could save several people from death. Don't blame the american people they are a slave race brainwashed by corrupt media, blame bush and his oil-buddies elite. Do a bit of oragami with the $10 and $20 bill and you will see what i'm on about. They complain that gas costs $2.80 a gallon that half what we pay goddamn it. If bush could make a buck for himself and his buddies he'd spend the trillion of public (borrowed money) (America is heavily in debt) and do it. This costs if true which i don't doubt, will be equal to the whole cost of WW2 to all sides. I know that the Iraq war is costing almost $3,000 every second anyway. In the time it took me to write this at least a million people could have had their lives transformed with what the war has cost in this space of time. Bush huh ? Don't blame the yankee rednecks they are just funny and adorable, we'd vote for bush too if we were brainwashed into thinking he's nothing short of a cuddly teddy bear also.

I swear reading netwizkid is like watching some weird hybrid overly simplistic seasame st st run by the lonegunmen who are treating their audience like morons that they think utterly profound vast insights into conspiracy theories they've worked out from the pages of the guardian, are profound insights rather than oversimplified inane garbage.

Put simply it's like getting talked down to by a a five year who has "oswald was a patsy" on his t-shirt while carrying a bert and earnie lunch box

What bothers me about the above is the failure of the anti war left to capitalise on these figures, the cost of the iraqi misadventure means that potential college students are now enlisting in the army as this is the only alternative available to them, the money their parents could have spent sending their children to college is instead being spent sending their children to their deaths.

Appealing to americans on a cold hard cash level combined with a where would you rather your kids be, message, would be cynical but excellent message of the US public.

CerebralCortex

Now I wish I could express myself like that ^^^^^. It is everything I would wish to say on the subject and more.

Cake Fiend

Spot on mycroft - any time I see the aforementioned poster's nick, regardless of the forum or topic at hand, I have to swiftly scroll past

bonkey

Ajnag wrote:

Hmm, according to that debt clock the debt per capita is somewhere around 26'000, Now when we consider a gdp per capita of 33'000, One has to wonder what the implications are when debt per capita reach's gdp per capita. Probably not good either way.

Umm...I think you're forgetting that gdppc is annual, but the dpc is one-off. Think about buying a house - the debt you incur is massively higher than your gdppc. Doesn't mean you can't afford to buy it.

Also watch china get increasingly cocky in relation to us relation's, remember pre 9/11 the china/america recon plane debacle? How things have changed, considering the amount of dollar reserves held in china and south east china there are serious implications for the us in the future.

There's more serious implications (IMHO) in the reality that international businesses seem to be falling over themselves to carve a niche in the emerging Chinese market.....a lot of which seems to involve believing that the Chinese are happy to allow their economy to be effectively run by existing foreign internationals, rather than (as I believe the Chinese are doing) allowing them in long enough to learn from them in order to replace them with domestic equivalents.....which subsequently will have massive international clout due to the size of the domestic market behind them.

I just hope the world economy will have reduced dependance on the american economy by then.

The only things likely to do that are (again, in my opinion) a collapse of the hydrocarbon-based energy "market", or an increased dependance on the Chinese market.

jc

bonkey

mycroft wrote:

What bothers me about the above is the failure of the anti war left to capitalise on these figures

To do so would be literally begging the pro-war right to stand up and loudly express their unmitigated disgust that the anti war left would put profit over the humanitarian need to remove Saddam Hussein.


Indeed, it is more likely that they would drag out some moral equivalence argument to equate opposition to paying an average of 30 bill a year over the rest of the first half of this century as support for Saddam coupled with unmitigated capitalist greed. And then add in a bit about how its despicable that after complaining about the cost in lives, the left have gone to the cost in cash as if they believe the American people would value their money higher then the lives of their sons and daughters and the protection of democracy and the American Way [tm].


Sure, its a flawed argument, but who cares? Its not about being right...its about selling the other person's despicability to a public who don't care about the finer details.


A more honest argument might be that the cost is actually necessary. America and the developed world in general are utterly dependant on oil. The US have made no bones about their hope/belief/intent that the instigation of democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq will serve as a catalyst for stabilising, democratising and "freeing" the Middle East. Now ask yourself why they want the ME in particular to hae these things? Its not because they want to own the Middle Eastern oil...its because they (and the rest of the world) need to be able to buy it on the open market. Stability is the ultimate aim. Second would be the breaking of OPEC - which Iraq conveniently offers a possible avenue on. Third would be having more oil-producing nations in the same boat as Saudi Arabia...owing the US in one way or another that the US can pay somewhat less than the market rate and/or be guaranteed their share of the oil.


A stabilised ME - even if it takes 20 years to achieve and a cost of trillions - is vastly preferable to a "collapsed" ME which would result in a collapse of the hydrocarbon energy markets, which in turn would cause a collapse of the entire global economy.


While I don't believe that the plan was the right one, I do believe that stability in the Middle East is vital to US concerns, and that this is ultimatley the reason they went into Iraq.


Cost is secondary.


The spice must flow.

gandalf

Mycroft you are banned from Politics permanently. Given after all this time and previous bans you cannot seem to grasp the basic concept of attack the post and not the poster.

gandalf

Sico wrote:

Spot on mycroft - any time I see the aforementioned poster's nick, regardless of the forum or topic at hand, I have to swiftly scroll past

One week ban for you sir.

rsynnott

bonkey wrote:

The spice must flow.

Heh

netwhizkid

mycroft wrote:

I swear reading netwizkid is like watching some weird hybrid overly simplistic seasame st st run by the lonegunmen who are treating their audience like morons that they think utterly profound vast insights into conspiracy theories they've worked out from the pages of the guardian, are profound insights rather than oversimplified inane garbage.

Put simply it's like getting talked down to by a a five year who has "oswald was a patsy" on his t-shirt while carrying a bert and earnie lunch box

Wow what an attack, i put forward some thoughts on the issue and i get attacked like this.

gandalf wrote:

Mycroft you are banned from Politics permanently. Given after all this time and previous bans you cannot seem to grasp the basic concept of attack the post and not the poster.

As much as i hate to see anyone getting banned this guy completely attacked me and my character rather than what i posted. I think he has become another victim of war !

ON TOPIC: After yesterdays speech by Bush i cannot see the cost of war coming sown anytime soon, I think now that Iraq is going to become more like Vietnam and will only be resolved with a change in the White House. I was in the states last week and i was talking to political people there canvassing for the NYC Mayoral campaign and steps are afoot to Impeach Bush ala Bill Clinton's Impeachment that time. I just hope that this time they suceceed.

Wheely

netwhizkid wrote:

I think now that Iraq is going to become more like Vietnam and will only be resolved with a change in the White House. I was in the states last week and i was talking to political people there canvassing for the NYC Mayoral campaign and steps are afoot to Impeach Bush ala Bill Clinton's Impeachment that time. I just hope that this time they suceceed.

Thats a bit of a pardoxical staement there netwhizkid. The more and more Iraq becomes another Vietnam, the less and less chance of a change in administation doing anything.

The war in Iraq has become a question of US credibility, methinks.The US keep changing the issues here, changing the enemy, but its no longer a question of any of these things now.. Think about it,first it was a question of 9/11, then WMD's, then Saddam, now the target is much much wider...TERROR! Just like the warped view the administration had of Vietnam in thet if it was lost to Hanoi, then Communism would triumph and from there would take over the world...Bushes speech yesterday sounded the same..."we wont let terrorists set up in failed nations and plan more 9/11's and if we pull out of Iraq thats what'll happen" Same rhetoric...same bulls**t.

As with Vietnam...the real problem is...they got involved, thet said they'd win..now they have to. The fact is that as the planets hyper-power, America cannot be seen to cut and run. To do so would irreperably damage their credibility, and this wont change whether its a Republican or a Democrat in Washington. True that maybe a Demcrat mightn't have made the decision to go to war in the first place but all thats irrelevant now.

Vietnam saw, Truman,Eisehower,Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford, thats 3 democrats and 3 republicans...it was a republican who finally ended it. But they are truly between a rock and a hard place now...they're the most powerful nation on earth, and imo what will hapen is that they will stick it out till they "win" or the toll on human life and society will become so great that they will be forced to pull out in humiliation and defeat...remember it took 20 years for this to happen in Vietnam!!

lucernarian

originally posted by bonkey
The spice must flow

Now that was the epitome of an appropriate quote. The parallels between Iraq, or in particular the ME, and Dune are many.
MJET

rsynnott

To_be_confirmed wrote:

Now that was the epitome of an appropriate quote. The parallels between Iraq, or in particular the ME, and Dune are many.
MJET

Yes indeed; alt.book.dune is full of mad right wing Americans shouting. For 3 years now.