The Cost of (Iraq) War

[Reaper]

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.

 

You are arguing against a claim I never made ? I posted that the most effective forms is usually always truthful, not that most of it is.

 

 

RE the second paragraph, I indeed did make a little mistake with my wording there. Otherwise what I did mean is that with the money that is spent, we could have done any of the things, whether instantaneously or over 200 years (i.e. recycling).

 

================================

 

 

 

In any case, I agree with the video. It is not just mere "propaganda", it is primarily intended to get people such as ourselves to stop being stupid sheep and most importantly to think about it.

[MrMongoose]

Well if accurate information is effective propoganda, then it is propoganda. So saying it's not propoganda because it's accurate makes very little sense.

 

I don't see why people need to be told what to think about.. like sheep.

[ParanoiA]

Well, the overall message is good, but it's definitely propoganda, which undermines it's intent - if that is to persuade people. And that's without my speakers...I'll be willing to bet there's some teary, save-the-children music backing these slides.

 

I was in desparate need of that line toward the end, that we should have done "NOTHING" with the 2.4 trillion since it was money we didn't have. But that was after something like 4 or 5 minutes of sappy socialist brainwashing exercises in creative math. Gee, just think of how many children you could save with your car payment. You really choose the convenience of driving over the lives hundreds, if not thousands of human beings?

 

I mean, hell, war in Iraq is it least driven by some far fetched idea of survival - but driving? Sorry, but it's a fallacious framework that the majority of the flick uses.

 

That said though, I do dig the message in the end. I thought it was definitely pro-military and demonstrated a thoughtful concern for this war, and the direction we're heading.

 

There was a qualifier caption on one slide "Not that I think we should do it, just that we could" - that should have been on all the slides, except maybe the police, the sciences and the waste bit.

[MrMongoose]

Glad someone isn't completely brainwashed.

 

I think the "Not that I think we should do it, just that we could" was just put in to show contempt for laptops because they don't save trees and whales and baby jesus.

[Reaper]

What I find interesting is that you guys seem to be wanting to deny all of this because you don't feel comfortable with the implications (or don't want to take responsibility for) of what we are currently doing in Iraq or elsewhere. Its quite similar to the way that people try to rationalize their unwillingness to take steps to reduce their carbon and ecological footprint (Where do you think most of the pollution and waste comes from? HINT: It's NOT from the industry...)

 

 

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you have yet to show how any of this is wrong (i.e. I only care about facts, not about your opinions). The term "brainwashed" is incorrect in this case.

 

I think the "Not that I think we should do it, just that we could" was just put in to show contempt for laptops because they don't save trees and whales and baby jesus.

 

Actually, that was put under gasoline prices, not laptops.

[MrMongoose]

I stand corrected. And yes... thats about right. The guy was just too desperate to show that he didnt want to make rich americans comfier, but rather to help foreigners.

 

I'm not entirely comfortable with war, but realistically, the video is a load of crap. On the contrary, I realise that carbon dioxide is not so inevitable and that I personally can make a change, so do the best I can in my current situation (not owning my own house as I do).

[Reaper]

I stand corrected. And yes... thats about right. The guy was just too desperate to show that he didnt want to make rich americans comfier, but rather to help foreigners.

 

There you go again. How is that statement that he put under gas prices an indication of that? He listed it on there just to show what could have been, not whether or not it was exactly correct or the right thing to do. (Everything else he listed otherwise I do agree with).

 

 

I'm not entirely comfortable with war, but realistically, the video is a load of crap.

 

How so? We are so willing to pay a huge percentage on our money toward war, why can't we do the same for all of the other things listed in the video?

 

On the contrary, I realise that carbon dioxide is not so inevitable and that I personally can make a change, so do the best I can in my current situation (not owning my own house as I do).

 

Owning your own house does not automatically make you a contributer to those problems.

 

Well, the overall message is good, but it's definitely propoganda, which undermines it's intent - if that is to persuade people. And that's without my speakers...I'll be willing to bet there's some teary, save-the-children music backing these slides.

 

..........................................

 

 

Sure, that's easy enough for you to say, but then, most on here (that includes those who are actually in those organizations) don't even know what it means to actually live in crushing poverty under the thumb of a tyrannical despot (usually backed and maintained by the U.S. no less...). About 75% of the world does not even have basic telephone service, never mind all the things that Americans usually waste their money and lives on.

 

There was a qualifier caption on one slide "Not that I think we should do it, just that we could" - that should have been on all the slides, except maybe the police, the sciences and the waste bit.

 

Why though?

[ParanoiA]

Sure, that's easy enough for you to say, but then, most on here (that includes those who are actually in those organizations) don't even know what it means to actually live in crushing poverty under the thumb of a tyrannical despot (usually backed and maintained by the U.S. no less...). About 75% of the world does not even have basic telephone service, never mind all the things that Americans usually waste their money and lives on.

 

How does this make the case the government should force it's citizens to give up their money for its moral ideas of generosity? Humanitarian aid should be given freely by the public, persuaded by these same kinds of videos - with the exception of asking for the money, or other kinds of help, not telling me how the subsequences of robbing my wallet could have been so much better.

 

Our disagreement is that I don't believe government should fund the things in that video any more than they should fund Iraq - with the exception of police and the sciences. There are things I believe the government should do, and they should do them well - policing and national security are among the most important of those. Taking care of the impoverished is not an appropriate government function.

 

I don't believe the answer to the world's problems are found in governments, but rather freely organized people that aren't saddled by institutionalized beaurocracies and intransigent constitutions of law. Bill Gates could wire a billion dollars to Darfur tomorrow afternoon - how long do you think it would take to get that transfer going with our government system? Our government is cool, but it's job is clinical, in my humbled opinion.

 

Why though?

 

Because I view government more like a referee and free society as the players. I don't understand why people automatically think "government" when there is something in the world they don't like or don't agree with, or want to change. The free market is where all the action is supposed to be at, refereed by the rules of the constitution.

 

But instead of going to the trouble to change the hearts and minds of the masses, they take an easier path and rationalize government interference. So, in my view, obviously most of those comparisons in the video on various ways we can blow everyone's money were invalid and ineffective at proving their point.

[Reaper]

How does this make the case the government should force it's citizens to give up their money for its moral ideas of generosity?

 

Arguing against a point I never made ?

 

 

Our disagreement is that I don't believe government should fund the things in that video any more than they should fund Iraq - with the exception of police and the sciences. There are things I believe the government should do, and they should do them well - policing and national security are among the most important of those. Taking care of the impoverished is not an appropriate government function.

 

But, as we all know, the government or anybody else for that matter doesn't do any of that. Most are perfectly happy with blowing their money and resources on something that ultimately does them no good, which was basically the whole point of the video. That's why it was showing examples of what could have been, ranging from humanitarian aid to sciences to consumer products to social services (i.e. education, police, etc) to helping the environment, to even doing nothing.

 

 

I don't believe the answer to the world's problems are found in governments, but rather freely organized people that aren't saddled by institutionalized beaurocracies and intransigent constitutions of law.

 

I agree with that, but I never made that point to begin with, and neither did the video, if you care to actually pay attention to the whole thing and especially the last portions of it.

 

Bill Gates could wire a billion dollars to Darfur tomorrow afternoon - how long do you think it would take to get that transfer going with our government system? Our government is cool, but it's job is clinical, in my humbled opinion.

 

He could do that, but the situation of course is much more complex then that because what is happening in Darfur is due more to misguided ideological reasons (A BIG understatement, but technically that's the reason).

 

As for our government, well, I disagree with you there. I believe that our government in this day and age is nothing more than a pack of wolves.

 

 

Because I view government more like a referee and free society as the players. I don't understand why people automatically think "government" when there is something in the world they don't like or don't agree with, or want to change. The free market is where all the action is supposed to be at, refereed by the rules of the constitution.

 

I don't know either, but I think it has to do with the people's desire to follow the so-called alpha male, so to speak. But then again, I never actually argued for that.

 

So, in my view, obviously most of those comparisons in the video on various ways we can blow everyone's money were invalid and ineffective at proving their point.

 

So, it's blowing your money to work on setting up solar panels on your own house, which would effectively take you off the grid and pay itself back over a short period of time? Or to provide medical help to all those who obviously can't afford it? Well, if you see it THAT way, it's no wonder why any of this doesn't seem to happen much sooner.

 

======================================

 

While the idea of free markets and free enterprise solving all of these problems without any government whatsoever is great, it just isn't realistic. As we all know, many of those organizations and corporations and other "free market enterprises" (even many of those who claim to aim to help the impoverished), and our own government are nothing more than a pack of wolves. And a great many people out there are either unaware or indifferent to what is going on. I don't think the government is the solution to everything, but I do think it has a responsibility to at least making people aware of these issues and at least giving some basic aid to organizations that actually aim to alleviate many of these problems, whether they be the sciences, social services, or the environment.

[ParanoiA]

Arguing against a point I never made ?

 

You took issue with my comment about teary, save-the-children music and how most of us don't understand poverty in the world. So, I basically replied by asking how this matters. They're making the case the 2.4 trillion could be so much better spent - on socalist crap that government shouldn't spend money on EITHER.

 

It would be like criticizing "spending 2.4 trillion dollars on subsidizing ethanol, when we could have gone to war with Iraq". I would reply the same way - neither is what we should be spending the 2.4 trillion on.

 

That's why it was showing examples of what could have been, ranging from humanitarian aid to sciences to consumer products to social services (i.e. education, police, etc) to helping the environment, to even doing nothing.

 

Yes, and it's exactly these "could have beens" that create the fallacious framework - that's the fallacy right there. All of the "could have beens" are just as invalid as the "what was" - the war.

 

We could have bought trillions and trillions of pink ping pong balls - perhaps a thousand for every child...just think of it...

 

I agree with that, but I never made that point to begin with, and neither did the video, if you care to actually pay attention to the whole thing and especially the last portions of it.

 

No, you don't agree with that or you wouldn't take issue with it. I also never said it was a point the video made - it's an elaboration on my position about "impoverishment" not being the job of government, thus invalidating the "could have beens" in the video.

 

He could do that' date=' but the situation of course is much more complex then that because what is happening in Darfur is due more to misguided ideological reasons (A BIG understatement, but technically that's the reason).

 

As for our government, well, I disagree with you there. I believe that our government in this day and age is nothing more than a pack of wolves. [/quote']

 

No, no. I'm speaking philosophically. Our government is designed for a sterile, clinical rule of law. The "personality" of helping the needy and so forth, to me, is not a function of law and order and functions better within free society anyway - the Bill Gates' of the world.

 

Governments are constrained by their laws and politics and are thus quite lethargic in exercise - whereas private citizens can do wonders without consulting a committee, waiting for a legislative session and etc... That was my point - not the particulars of Darfur.

[MrMongoose]

How so? We are so willing to pay a huge percentage on our money toward war, why can't we do the same for all of the other things listed in the video?

 

Beacuse war is the only option that will make a profit

 

There you go again. How is that statement that he put under gas prices an indication of that? He listed it on there just to show what could have been, not whether or not it was exactly correct or the right thing to do. (Everything else he listed otherwise I do agree with).

 

So why does he only say he wouldn't do this one? If he didnt want to do the others, he'd say the same for everything.

 

Owning your own house does not automatically make you a contributer to those problems.

 

You misunderstand. I said I do as much as I can considering don't own my own house. My landlord wont let me tear the roof down and cover it in solar panels.

[iNow]

I said I do as much as I can considering don't own my own house. My landlord wont let me tear the roof down and cover it in solar panels.

 

Actually, I bet they would if you were willing to fund it and leave it with the house/in their possession were you to move.

[Realitycheck]

Beacuse war is the only option that will make a profit

 

I'm sorry, but this just does not make any sense. I once believed that the war machine could be a profitable venture, in general, but once you factor in national debt, the oil market, and the will of the public, it all just kind of falls apart. Putting up 3.8 billion sq. meters of solar panels will definitely make a profit. If you notice here, the country doesn't start profiting until AFTER WWII is over.

 

[iNow]

Just to be clear, a downward trend on the above graph is a good one.

[Pangloss]

Rule of Acquisition #34: War is good for business.

Rule of Acquisition #35: Peace is good for business.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_acquisition

[MrMongoose]

You have to spend money to make money. Just to be clear, the greatest negative gradient on the graph is immediately after a war

 

Me donating solar panels to my landlord is about as realistic as 2.4 trillion dollars even existing if it weren't for war.