The Cost of (Iraq) War

[Reaper]

Just watched this video, another good one by cdk. It kinda made me feel a little guilty and a bit stupid watching it. But it did make me think and gives even more reason as to why our current investment in the Iraq war is just plain stupid. Enjoy....

 

[spikerz66]

Hmm very interesting video. I appreciate the post.

[iNow]

To me, it underscores our responsibility as the citizenry to demand change. It's not that Iraq has an easy solution, only that our priorities seem desperately malaligned with deeper issues, and do not represent what the people (of the Earth as a whole) really want.

 

 

Those who have the ability to make change have the responsibility to ensure they do.

[thedarkshade]

Well the bad thing is that America has suffered from this war. This is Bush's war, not America's!

[Pangloss]

I'm not sure what's more embarassing, the fact that thedarkshade is right, or the fact that I'm being lectured on the legitimacy of war by a Serbian.

 

An ironic situation, given the way we're balkanizing Iraq!

[thedarkshade]

I'm not sure what's more embarassing, the fact that thedarkshade is right, or the fact that I'm being lectured on the legitimacy of war by a Serbian.

 

An ironic situation, given the way we're balkanizing Iraq!

What do you mean by a Serbian????

[ecoli]

What do you mean by a Serbian????

 

I'm guessing you're Albanian?

[thedarkshade]

I'm guessing you're Albanian?

Yes! Kosovar to be more exact. Kosova is a country surrounded by Serbia, Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro! In the period 98-99 we were in war with Serbia. And this is the reason I was touched by the statemetn "...by a Serbian". That's an offense for me!

[MrMongoose]

9/11 killed nearly 3000 people, but this is completely unimportant when compared to the 65000 people that die of flu, the 50000 that die of alzheimer etc. each year.

 

Yet it is NOT acceptable that 4000 soldiers have died in the war. Why is that?

 

Using the same logic as the author of the video, surely thats completely unimportant compared to the 65000 people killed by flu each year and so on?

 

Very hypocritical.

 

Also, 9/11 happened over the course of a day, but the war on terror has caused 4000 American deaths over a period of 6 years. That means that the war on terror kills only 700 people per year, or 1.8 over the duration of 9/11.

 

Doing nothing would show that America tolerates murder by foreign nations, and a whole lot more people would have died to date and a whole lot more money would have been spent on defending the country against the Chinese or the Russians.

 

While the war has cost $24 trillion, the additional oil that will tide the US over until everybody has a Toyota Prius is priceless, so the war is only worthless if compared to the very limited list of assumed reasons for war given by the author of the video.

 

Yet Toyota Priuses are less efficient than standard IC cars, so that would be a worse way to spend the money.

 

Of course, it could be argued that buying them puts money into a company that is trying to improve hybrid technology, but a $24 trillion war on terror is providing funding to defence companies who create technology which historically has led to greater efficiency of devices used in the domestic sector.

 

I think a lot of the other data is far too presumptious too.

 

$24 trillion would not feed every starving child in the world, because although at todays food prices that would be the cost, there just isn't enough suitable land to grow the crops and food prices would go up enormously if we beagn to try.

 

Now I'm not saying that war is a good thing, but I am saying that propoganda with extreme bias is a terrible thing and that without an infrastructure as strong as the government itself, an army of protestors motivated by nonsense they found on youtube isn't going to have an effect.

[iNow]

9/11 killed nearly 3000 people, but this is completely unimportant when compared to the 65000 people that die of flu, the 50000 that die of alzheimer etc. each year.

Even relative to those other things, it's still pretty important... ESPECIALLY to those who lost people they love.

 

 

Yet it is NOT acceptable that 4000 soldiers have died in the war. Why is that?

Deaths which CAN be avoided SHOULD be avoided.

 

 

Using the same logic as the author of the video, surely thats completely unimportant compared to the 65000 people killed by flu each year and so on?

 

Very hypocritical.

What's your beef exactly? Which logic?

 

 

Also, 9/11 happened over the course of a day, but the war on terror has caused 4000 American deaths over a period of 6 years. That means that the war on terror kills only 700 people per year, or 1.8 over the duration of 9/11.

It's an issue of priority, not body count.

 

 

Doing nothing would show that America tolerates murder by foreign nations, and a whole lot more people would have died to date and a whole lot more money would have been spent on defending the country against the Chinese or the Russians.

And precisely how does what we're currently doing show anything different?

 

 

While the war has cost $24 trillion, the additional oil that will tide the US over until everybody has a Toyota Prius is priceless, so the war is only worthless if compared to the very limited list of assumed reasons for war given by the author of the video.

How many people would you shoot in the face to fill your hummer with petrol?

 

 

Yet Toyota Priuses are less efficient than standard IC cars, so that would be a worse way to spend the money.

I don't follow. What are you talking about?

 

 

Of course, it could be argued that buying them puts money into a company that is trying to improve hybrid technology, but a $24 trillion war on terror is providing funding to defence companies who create technology which historically has led to greater efficiency of devices used in the domestic sector.

It is, of course, somewhat possible that the defense companies MIGHT help come up with devices for the private sector.. but for a price tag of $24 trillion, I'd like SIGNIFICANTLY more benefit... not just the POSSIBILITY of it.

 

 

 

$24 trillion would not feed every starving child in the world,

Yeah... I suppose one or two might remain hungry, but $24 trillion would feed a SHITLOAD of hungry people. I'm just sayin'...

 

 

because although at todays food prices that would be the cost, there just isn't enough suitable land to grow the crops and food prices would go up enormously if we beagn to try.

This doens't seem AT ALL related to the waste we're currently spending in Iraq. Care to show how it does?

 

 

Now I'm not saying that war is a good thing,

Pretty much what everyone else is "not" saying...

 

 

but I am saying that propoganda with extreme bias is a terrible thing and that without an infrastructure as strong as the government itself, an army of protestors motivated by nonsense they found on youtube isn't going to have an effect.

 

You seem to be suggesting that propoganda against war is worse than war itself. Either you've failed horribly at making your point, or your are seriously inconsistent in your viewpoint. Which is it?

[DrDNA]

Well the bad thing is that America has suffered from this war. This is Bush's war, not America's!

 

Actually, he may have started it, but we own it ......

 

We are obligated financially, legally (I'm actually not certain on that one...someone please help me or correct me here....can and/or does the world court, the Iraqi courts, the US courts, etc hold the USA liable?), politically, and morally to clean up the mess our elected officials (including congress) and their appointees created.

 

Funny thing is (well not so funny actually), this could probably easily (relatively easily) be solved if we could find another murderous puppet, much like Sadam Hussein, to put in power......

[MrMongoose]

Even relative to those other things, it's still pretty important... ESPECIALLY to those who lost people they love.

 

Deaths which CAN be avoided SHOULD be avoided.

 

What's your beef exactly? Which logic?

 

I think you've missed the point. The point is that saying 3000 deaths isn't worth getting upset over (because cancers so much worse, blah blah), yet 4000 shows that the author of the video is only willing to apply thier logic to the case which supports thier pointless video.

 

It's an issue of priority, not body count.

 

Exactly- is something that kills 3000 people in a day not more of a priority than something that kills 4000 people in 6 years? For the duration of 9/11, 9/11 was killing 1.5 million people a year!

 

And precisely how does what we're currently doing show anything different?

 

Well If you're talking about the lack of a connection between 9/11 and Iraq, then I agree with you, but my point was really meant in the spirit of critiquing the video.

 

 

How many people would you shoot in the face to fill your hummer with petrol?

 

I don't have a hummer, but if I did, it would be no more than the number of people I'd have to shoot in the face to fill my Prius with petrol. I don't have a prius either.

 

I don't follow. What are you talking about?

 

Over thier operating life, Priuses are less efficient than Novas.

 

 

It is, of course, somewhat possible that the defense companies MIGHT help come up with devices for the private sector.. but for a price tag of $24 trillion, I'd like SIGNIFICANTLY more benefit... not just the POSSIBILITY of it.

 

They won't come up with devices you'll use but they'll come up with technology that Toyota will buy in 20 years to make hybrid cars. We can't live in an imaginary dream world where $2.4trillion will be given to Toyota, but you can be assured that your tax money isn't going entirely to waste.

 

Yeah... I suppose one or two might remain hungry, but $24 trillion would feed a SHITLOAD of hungry people. I'm just sayin'...

 

I agree it would, but I object to people making videos which lie, especially if its because they're stupid rather than devious.

 

This doens't seem AT ALL related to the waste we're currently spending in Iraq. Care to show how it does?

 

Well that was my explanation of why $2.4trillion is useless if you don't have enough farmland. I guess that explains your above comment.

 

Pretty much what everyone else is "not" saying...

 

Well I'm not going to say war is not a good thing just because of peer pressure thanks. It has many pros and cons, and Im fed up of everyones views being so extreme. It seems 80% of people think all war is terrible, 18% of people think kicking foreigners asses is awesome and 2% are open to arguments from both sides.

 

You seem to be suggesting that propoganda against war is worse than war itself. Either you've failed horribly at making your point, or your are seriously inconsistent in your viewpoint. Which is it?

 

I didn't say that antiwar propoganda is bad- I said that extremely biased propoganda of any ilk is bad. I'd like to know how you think being against antiwar propoganda would be inconsistent with anything I've said, especially as you seem to have me down as pro-war.

[iNow]

It seems 80% of people think all war is terrible.

 

My argument is basically that the percentage above should be 100%. I don't know how else to say it without exasserbating an unecessary disagreement with you.

[DrDNA]

The things we do for oil.....it really is the whore of babylon....

[MrMongoose]

My argument is basically that the percentage above should be 100%. I don't know how else to say it without exasserbating an unecessary disagreement with you.

 

Ah ok. Well I disagree. Not because I think that war is good. I don't.

 

My problem with the anti-war video is not that it is anti-war, but that it is pretty terrible.

 

No point having an argument

[iNow]

Here's what I suppose I'm missing.

 

 

How is propaganda for peace a bad thing?

[MrMongoose]

A statement of opinion the peace is good and a set of unbiased facts is good.

 

A completely biased list riddled with inaccuracies, unfairness and misunderstandings just makes pacifists look like fools.

[Pangloss]

Yes! Kosovar to be more exact. Kosova is a country surrounded by Serbia, Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro! In the period 98-99 we were in war with Serbia. And this is the reason I was touched by the statemetn "...by a Serbian". That's an offense for me!

 

If it's any consolation, I was talking about your nationality, not your race. As I understand it Kosova's status is not yet fully determined, and it's written up in the Wikipedia as a state within Serbia, with soverignity but under UN control (so I said "Serbian"). Your racial identification is of no importance to me.

 

Regardless, no offense was intended. The fact that I find the situation embarassing is not a reflection on your country but rather a reflection on mine. Your reaction certainly underscored my point about Balkanization, though. Gee.

[thedarkshade]

Yes Pangloss, our status is currently not defined, but we are expecting it to happen this three month period. It's been a hard time for all of us going through the negotiations with serbians, but it seems that there is light at the end of the tunnel.

 

And soon the article in Wiki will no longer say Kosova is within Serbia (actually in a moral way it never was)

 

Cheers,

Shade

[Reaper]

A completely biased list riddled with inaccuracies, unfairness and misunderstandings just makes pacifists look like fools.

 

Why don't you point out these various "inaccuracies, unfairness, and misunderstandings" for us? I ran the numbers and claims myself and they seem pretty reasonable to me.

 

This video is far from being mere "propaganda", and the author does not appear to be a full fledged pacifist.

[MrMongoose]

Well just repeating the examples i used above if you'd care to read my first post, counting 3000 compared to 160000 as negligible, but not doing the same for 4000 is unfairness.

 

Thinking that just because grain costs x amount today, it would be that cheap if there was a sudden $24trillion increase in grain demand is a huge misunderstanding.

 

 

 

 

 

Admittedly the following definition is from an online dictionary, but nonetheless, how is the video anything other than propoganda?

 

prop·a·gan·da (prŏp'ə-gān'də) Pronunciation Key

n.

The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.

 

Frankly anybody who puts time aside to make antiwar propoganda is a pacifist.

 

I'll say again though. I'm not pro-war. I just don't think that poor propoganda is the answer.

[DrDNA]

Here's what I suppose I'm missing.

 

 

How is propaganda for peace a bad thing?

 

I know, I know.....

 

Because, if effective, it drives down profits for KBR H, Boeing, Honeywell and a bunch of other corporate entities that profit from the opposite of peace.

 

Frankly anybody who puts time aside to make antiwar propoganda is a pacifist.

I know pacifists and I ain't one of em by any way, stretch, or means so trust me when I say this isn't personal. But exactly what is wrong with being a "pacifist"?

[Reaper]

Well just repeating the examples i used above if you'd care to read my first post, counting 3000 compared to 160000 as negligible, but not doing the same for 4000 is unfairness.

 

I did, it is just that it is irrelevant. The circumstances are different for each and every case, and in the case of the 4000 losses on the U.S. military, they could, and should have been avoided. The comparison fails because the 3000 figure was a planned attack, while those 160000+ deaths are due to the various reasons outlined (while I would argue that some of those deaths may be self-inflicted, but they still contribute to the social cost overall...). The 4000 deaths in Iraq (well, actually there is way more then that, but we are only counting U.S. military personnel) were more or less self-inflicted for no logical reason other than the fact that Bush, for whatever reason, wanted to instigate a war; and regardless on what you hear on other American propaganda, it is NOT fought in the name of freedom, equality, goodness, etc (If we actually cared about THAT, we would be against ALL totalitarian governments, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Venezuela, etc). You can call that fair or unfair if you want, but the figures and reasons behind them still stand.

 

 

Thinking that just because grain costs x amount today, it would be that cheap if there was a sudden $24trillion increase in grain demand is a huge misunderstanding.

 

No, he was comparing the cost of the war to what the total amount of money could have otherwise accomplished in the same span of time. If we spent and/or invested nearly as much on any of the things the video listed, we probably could have accomplished it and we would have most likely been far better off; it doesn't matter how long it would have taken to implement any of this (he even states clearly how long it would take to use up all of the money under given circumstances). It's not like we lack the natural resources or the capital to have undergone such investments either.

 

 

Admittedly the following definition is from an online dictionary, but nonetheless, how is the video anything other than propoganda?

 

Maybe because the figures are accurate. And besides, we are surrounded by propaganda at every single instance; not all of it is bad either. Here is the proper definition of propaganda:

 

propaganda (information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause)

 

and

 

Propaganda [from modern Latin: 'propagare'' date= "extending forth"] is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people. Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. The most effective propaganda is often completely truthful, but some propaganda presents facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience.

 

A simple television commercial is a form of propaganda, for example.

 

Frankly anybody who puts time aside to make antiwar propoganda is a pacifist.

 

Hasty generalization, non sequitor and/or slippery slope fallacies. Besides, he clearly states that he is not pacifist, so your assumptions are incorrect.

 

 

I'll say again though. I'm not pro-war. I just don't think that poor propoganda is the answer.

 

But its not, and I ran the numbers myself. This seems to be based more out of personal distaste of a group of people or a particular philosophy (of which he is not part of or supports in anyway, no less), rather than an objective reason.

[iNow]

I also did not perceive the video as "anti-war." I perceived it as pro-"rational and intelligent decision making and prioritization of our resources."

[MrMongoose]

DrDNA, I didn't say pacifism is bad.

 

Frankly anybody who puts time aside to make antiwar propoganda is a pacifist.

 

That was just a response to it not being propoganda.

 

In your latest post, lockheed, you tell me that it is not propoganda because the figures are accurate, then go on to bold part of a definition saying that propoganda is most often truthful (accurate), so I'm afraid you've really lost me there.

 

Also, in your second paragraph, you say that these are things that could be acomplished in the same time span, then immediately say that it does'nt matter how long it takes, and comment on how the video shows timesclaes ranging from instantaneous to 60 years.

 

Until your arguments hold any kind of continuity, I'm not going to be able to argue against any one of your points without arguing for another!