So is the Iraq escapade worth the money?

[dmcowen674]

So is the Iraq escapade worth the money?

Yep, to witness the American Sheeple in action: Priceless

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: sumyungai

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: sumyungai
You're forgetting a 9/11 style attack costs America money as well. Didn't you see the stock market after 9/11? How was your job after 9/11? Many people were laid off due to the impact of 9/11. Our tourist industry went to a screeching holt and how many jobs were affected by this? How many of these types of attacks can our economy withstand? And remember if we never went to Iraq, these types of attacks could carry on indefinitely .

Pssstt... Al Qaeda was head quartered in Afghanistan not Iraq... Einstien:roll:

Oh really? Is Al Qaeda our only threat? What does Al Qaeda stand (idealogically speaking) for? Who else has the same believes and goals as Al Qaeda?

A gazillion other groups that exist in several other countries but didn't exist in Iraq until the US invaded.

Well that's not entirely true, there was an Al Qaeda Camp in Kurd Controlled Northern Iraq which was also at odds with Hussein along with America

Actually, wasn't that where Zarqawi was? I believe it was. Zarqawi wasn't Al Qaeda (he just claimed allegiance to bin Laden and Al Qaeda not too long ago...well, if it *was* him declaring that allegiance, considering he's been killed a couple of times, lost a leg, injured a lung, been buried, etc.)

 

[msparish]

On Monday in our economics class, our professor showed us an article in the New York Times by a well respected economist. If the war was to stop today, the total cost would range between 1-2 trillion dollars. This projection includes things like soldier disibility payments. At any rate, for 1-2 trillion dollars we could have made the country much more secure than the way it has been spent in Iraq. Not to mention the loss of life.

 

[sumyungai]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: sumyungai
You're telling me that people who work for the airline industry, travel agencies, restaurants, theme parks, malls, etc weren't immediately effected by 9/11?

Point to where I said any of that. You can't. Point to where I said anything even close to that. You can't.

What were you refering to when you said this?

Nope, I'm including damages done - to the buildings, the contents, and the economy.

My apologies if I misunderstood.

 

[sumyungai]

Originally posted by: msparish
On Monday in our economics class, our professor showed us an article in the New York Times by a well respected economist. If the war was to stop today, the total cost would range between 1-2 trillion dollars. This projection includes things like soldier disibility payments. At any rate, for 1-2 trillion dollars we could have made the country much more secure than the way it has been spent in Iraq. Not to mention the loss of life.

Did 9/11 costs lives and money too?

When you ignore the problem, the problem persists indefinitely. When you atleast try to solve the problem, there's a chance it will go away.

Edit. Where the problem lies is an ongoing and neverending debate. Liberals blame America, while Conservatives blame an idealogy of hate.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: sumyungai
What were you refering to when you said this?

I was referring to the entire section of the quote that I quoted. I never said that the airline industry, travel agencies, etc weren't immediately affected by 9/11. Of course they were. There was economic damage to those specific industries. But even if we ignore the industries with economic gain, that damage was not as bis as Iraq will be.

Maximum Numbers that I've seen look like this (estimates are lower too, I'm just posting the maximum I could find):
[*]Property damage: $16.2 B
[*]Cleanup / Rescue: $27.2 B
[*]Insurance costs (property/medical): $58 B
[*]Added defense (not counting the wars, this is just what was added to the regular defense budget): $18 B
[*]Reduced economic growth: $500 B (this one had the greatest variance, $500 B is as big as I could possibly find). And the economy bounced back quickly. The impact that was there was very temporary and probably small.
[*]Total: $619 B.

Iraq war: $250 B so far not counting replacing equipment, medical bills for the rest of the injured soldier's lives, etc. Total impact: $1000B - $2000B. Lets just say $1500B for this discussion.

Even if we take the worst estimates for 9/11 and double it, it doesn't come close to the $1500B estimate for Iraq. If we take the midpoint estimates (not shown), you'd have to have almost a half dozen 9/11s to add up to Iraq.

Originally posted by: sumyungai
When you ignore the problem, the problem persists indefinitely. When you atleast try to solve the problem, there's a chance it will go away.

That is true. But Iraq wasn't the problem. There is also a chance of exaggerating the problem if it isn't addressed properly. How many more Muslims hate us now that we have attacked? (Creating Muslims that love us has no impact on our safety, only those who hate us attack.) Did the Iraq war create more Bin Ladens? Etc. There is a chance that the Iraq war made us safer - there is an equally good chance that the Iraq war made us less safe and more terrorism is in the planning stages.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: sumyungai

Originally posted by: msparish
On Monday in our economics class, our professor showed us an article in the New York Times by a well respected economist. If the war was to stop today, the total cost would range between 1-2 trillion dollars. This projection includes things like soldier disibility payments. At any rate, for 1-2 trillion dollars we could have made the country much more secure than the way it has been spent in Iraq. Not to mention the loss of life.

Did 9/11 costs lives and money too?

When you ignore the problem, the problem persists indefinitely. When you atleast try to solve the problem, there's a chance it will go away.

Repeat after me. Iraq had no connection to 9/11. Iraq was not a threat to the United States. Iraq had no connection to anti-American terrorism. The war on Iraq is fueling terrorism. The war on Iraq has increased anti-American hatred. The war on Iraq will cause more 9/11's.

 

[sumyungai]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: sumyungai
What were you refering to when you said this?

I was referring to the entire section of the quote that I quoted. I never said that the airline industry, travel agencies, etc weren't immediately affected by 9/11. Of course they were. There was economic damage to those specific industries. But even if we ignore the industries with economic gain, that damage was not as bis as Iraq will be.

Maximum Numbers that I've seen look like this (estimates are lower too, I'm just posting the maximum I could find):
[*]Property damage: $16.2 B
[*]Cleanup / Rescue: $27.2 B
[*]Insurance costs (property/medical): $58 B
[*]Added defense (not counting the wars, this is just what was added to the regular defense budget): $18 B
[*]Reduced economic growth: $500 B (this one had the greatest variance, $500 B is as big as I could possibly find).
[*]Total: $619 B.

Iraq war: $250 B so far not counting replacing equipment, medical bills for the rest of the injured soldier's lives, etc. Total impact: $1000B - $2000B. Lets just say $1500B for this discussion.

Even if we take the worst estimates for 9/11 and double it, it doesn't come close to the $1500B estimate for Iraq. If we take the midpoint estimates (not shown), you'd have to have almost a half dozen 9/11s to add up to Iraq.

Originally posted by: sumyungai
When you ignore the problem, the problem persists indefinitely. When you atleast try to solve the problem, there's a chance it will go away.

That is true. But Iraq wasn't the problem. There is also a chance of exaggerating the problem in Iraq. Now how many more Muslims hate us? Did Iraq create more Bin Ladens? Etc. There is a chance that the Iraq war made us safer - there is an equally good chance that the Iraq war made us less safe and more terrorism is in the planning stages.

I'm a little baffled, maybe I haven't done enough research, but what gains exactly have we've had due to 9/11? Let me just say Haliburton first before Conjur comes in here and say so. 🙂

Your equation has one flaw, your cost of 9/11 isn't entirely accurate. If 9/11 happened and we never invaded Iraq, people may be living in fear if they see on the news "Saddam threatening to give an Islamic terrorist group WMD's." If so, our tourist industry, airline industry, and economy as a whole will suffer, which will cost America more than your estimate.

Edit. Didn't see you added something there. In my opinion, our soldiers are keeping the terrorists busy in Iraq. With this feeling from most people, the feeling of fear is alleviated and our economy can continue.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: sumyungai
I'm a little baffled, maybe I haven't done enough research, but what gains exactly have we've had due to 9/11? Let me just say Haliburton first before Conjur comes in here and say so. 🙂

Defense, security, oil, etc are all areas that gained.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: sumyungai
I'm a little baffled, maybe I haven't done enough research, but what gains exactly have we've had due to 9/11? Let me just say Haliburton first before Conjur comes in here and say so. 🙂

Your equation has one flaw, your cost of 9/11 isn't entirely accurate. If 9/11 happened and we never invaded Iraq, people may be living in fear if they see on the news "Saddam threatening to give an Islamic terrorist group WMD's." If so, our tourist industry, airline industry, and economy as a whole will suffer, which will cost America more than your estimate.

Edit. Didn't see you added something there. In my opinion, our soldiers are keeping the terrorists busy in Iraq. With this feeling from most people, the feeling of fear is alleviated and our economy can continue.

I see you're building an entire army of straw men. Bravo.

 

[sumyungai]

If America had a constant threat of some kind of an eminent attack, what tourist in their right mind would visit us? Would anyone travel around in America? As you can see, living in constant fear will cost America much greater than any war.

 

[conjur]

The only reason we would be living in constant fear is because of the fear-mongering of an administration selling up false claims of threats. Pretty much like the neocons have done for about 30 years now.

 

[Lemon law]

Anyone watching this thread would somewhat have to conclude we are amusing Iraq will continue on this present course for the forseeable future-----I suggest that things will soon get dramatically better or dramatically worse--with any claims of dramatically better likely being a precursor for dratically worse.

To pretend that various regional neighbors are not laying plans and alliances in the event Iraq tips towards civil war is incredabibly naive. Likewise every power player inside Iraq are laying similar plans---on perhaps the over optimistic assumtion that they will benefit from a period of total chaos. Already regional death squads are operating, small armies controlled by local clerics and paramilitary types are openly killing their fellow Iraqi, and the occupying powers do little to stop it or protect Iraqi civilians.

The potential for an all out civil war to break out soon remains high---unless the US and the British pour in massive rebuilding funds in very soon, bring it on is likely to become the cry of the day. With Iraqi civilians, no matter how apathetic, forced to choose sides for self preservation.

 

[Kappo]

I personally would have made the Iraqi Sea, and saved the cash. But that would have pissed liberals off by killing thier heros like Sadaam 🙁

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: sumyungai
You're forgetting a 9/11 style attack costs America money as well. Didn't you see the stock market after 9/11? How was your job after 9/11? Many people were laid off due to the impact of 9/11. Our tourist industry went to a screeching holt and how many jobs were affected by this? How many of these types of attacks can our economy withstand? And remember if we never went to Iraq, these types of attacks could carry on indefinitely .

Pssstt... Al Qaeda was head quartered in Afghanistan not Iraq... Einstien:roll:

Rule of thumb - one shouldn't misspell Einstein when correcting another - inferring he is not intelligent 😀

Rule of thumb #2: One shouldn't use "infer" when one means "imply", especially when correcting someone else's English.

 

[Kappo]

OMG the grammar police are out.

If you get the idea, STFU and get to the point. No one cares that you have a $30k english degree and work at Starbucks.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: Kappo
I personally would have made the Iraqi Sea, and saved the cash. But that would have pissed liberals off by killing thier heros like Sadaam 🙁

Originally posted by: Kappo
OMG the grammar police are out.

If you get the idea, STFU and get to the point. No one cares that you have a $30k english degree and work at Starbucks.

You must be the latest in a long stream of hit and run flame bait trolls. Where will you go on your vacation from here? It will come soon boy.

 

[Kappo]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Kappo
I personally would have made the Iraqi Sea, and saved the cash. But that would have pissed liberals off by killing thier heros like Sadaam 🙁

Originally posted by: Kappo
OMG the grammar police are out.

If you get the idea, STFU and get to the point. No one cares that you have a $30k english degree and work at Starbucks.

You must be the latest in a long stream of hit and run flame bait trolls. Where will you go on your vacation from here? It will come soon boy.

I have been around FAR FAR longer than you. Dont get mad because the point hits home. Go read Mein Kampf and see how it can apply to online spelling.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: Kappo
I have been around FAR FAR longer than you. Dont get mad because the point hits home. Go read Mein Kampf and see how it can apply to online spelling.

Maybe you should go back to Off topic or where ever you are from before the mods boot you. I've seen your kind come and go it happens all the time if you watch P&N for a bit. Certain types of kiddies can't debate topics with brains so they pop in and out of threads and crap on them with name calling. Enjoy your short stay unless you want to play nice with the adults.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: sumyungai
You're forgetting a 9/11 style attack costs America money as well. Didn't you see the stock market after 9/11? How was your job after 9/11? Many people were laid off due to the impact of 9/11. Our tourist industry went to a screeching holt and how many jobs were affected by this? How many of these types of attacks can our economy withstand? And remember if we never went to Iraq, these types of attacks could carry on indefinitely .

Pssstt... Al Qaeda was head quartered in Afghanistan not Iraq... Einstien:roll:

Rule of thumb - one shouldn't misspell Einstein when correcting another - inferring he is not intelligent 😀

Rule of thumb #2: One shouldn't use "infer" when one means "imply", especially when correcting someone else's English.

Rule of thumb #3: One shouldn't say somebody is correcting someone's English, when they were really correcting spelling.

Rule of thumb #4: one should know that another meaning of "infer" is "to hint, imply" when attempting to correct someone's grammar.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=inferred

4. To hint; imply

 

[Kappo]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Kappo
I have been around FAR FAR longer than you. Dont get mad because the point hits home. Go read Mein Kampf and see how it can apply to online spelling.

Maybe you should go back to Off topic or where ever you are from before the mods boot you. I've seen your kind come and go it happens all the time if you watch P&N for a bit. Certain types of kiddies can't debate topics with brains so they pop in and out of threads and crap on them with name calling. Enjoy your short stay unless you want to play nice with the adults.

Get banned for pointing out that someone is trying to get some use out of a worthless English degree in an online "debate" that went off topic and started in about "OMG U SPELED IT WRUNG!"?

I dont think so. Good try though.

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: Kappo
I personally would have made the Iraqi Sea, and saved the cash. But that would have pissed liberals off by killing thier heros like Sadaam 🙁

Wow, another keyboard commando. You know I really wish that pics were mandatory around here. Just so I could look at the face of a person who would be so willing to kill off millions of innocent people.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: Kappo

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Kappo
I have been around FAR FAR longer than you. Dont get mad because the point hits home. Go read Mein Kampf and see how it can apply to online spelling.

Maybe you should go back to Off topic or where ever you are from before the mods boot you. I've seen your kind come and go it happens all the time if you watch P&N for a bit. Certain types of kiddies can't debate topics with brains so they pop in and out of threads and crap on them with name calling. Enjoy your short stay unless you want to play nice with the adults.

Get banned for pointing out that someone is trying to get some use out of a worthless English degree in an online "debate" that went off topic and started in about "OMG U SPELED IT WRUNG!"?

I dont think so. Good try though.

No, it's your inflamatory style. I searched your history and you are a broken recond. "Poor Liberals..." , "Saddam is your hero..", etc, etc. You add zero to every thread you reply to, your sole purpose to rub people the wrong way to get attention. You would never act this way in public with strangers, but here you decide to be a Rush clone and piss people off. Your life must be complete and you must feel like a big man now. But what do I know, I'm just another liberal with an arts degree who works at Starbucks right big guy?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: sumyungai
You're forgetting a 9/11 style attack costs America money as well. Didn't you see the stock market after 9/11? How was your job after 9/11? Many people were laid off due to the impact of 9/11. Our tourist industry went to a screeching holt and how many jobs were affected by this? How many of these types of attacks can our economy withstand? And remember if we never went to Iraq, these types of attacks could carry on indefinitely .

Pssstt... Al Qaeda was head quartered in Afghanistan not Iraq... Einstien:roll:

Rule of thumb - one shouldn't misspell Einstein when correcting another - inferring he is not intelligent 😀

Rule of thumb #2: One shouldn't use "infer" when one means "imply", especially when correcting someone else's English.

Rule of thumb #3: One shouldn't say somebody is correcting someone's English, when they were really correcting spelling.

Rule of thumb #4: one should know that another meaning of "infer" is "to hint, imply" when attempting to correct someone's grammar.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=inferred

4. To hint; imply

Rule of thumb #5: One should know that "English" encompasses spelling, grammar, usage, diction, punctuation, and pretty much everything else having to do with the language.

English: Of or relating to the English language.

Rule of thumb #6: One should now that it's preferable to use a word in its more precise sense rather than in a sense that's based on misuse. Further down on the very page you reference:

Usage Note: Infer is sometimes confused with imply, but the distinction is a useful one. When we say that a speaker or sentence implies something, we mean that it is conveyed or suggested without being stated outright: When the mayor said that she would not rule out a business tax increase, she implied (not inferred) that some taxes might be raised. Inference, on the other hand, is the activity performed by a reader or interpreter in drawing conclusions that are not explicit in what is said: When the mayor said that she would not rule out a tax increase, we inferred that she had been consulting with some new financial advisers, since her old advisers were in favor of tax reductions.

So, yes, you may use "infer" to mean "imply" (and may use "unique" to mean "unusual" instead of its original meaning, "one of a kind"), but you will be viewed by many as having had a deficient education if you do.

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: sumyungai
You're forgetting a 9/11 style attack costs America money as well. Didn't you see the stock market after 9/11? How was your job after 9/11? Many people were laid off due to the impact of 9/11. Our tourist industry went to a screeching holt and how many jobs were affected by this? How many of these types of attacks can our economy withstand? And remember if we never went to Iraq, these types of attacks could carry on indefinitely .

Pssstt... Al Qaeda was head quartered in Afghanistan not Iraq... Einstien:roll:

Rule of thumb - one shouldn't misspell Einstein when correcting another - inferring he is not intelligent 😀

Rule of thumb #2: One shouldn't use "infer" when one means "imply", especially when correcting someone else's English.

Rule of thumb #3: One shouldn't say somebody is correcting someone's English, when they were really correcting spelling.

Rule of thumb #4: one should know that another meaning of "infer" is "to hint, imply" when attempting to correct someone's grammar.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=inferred

4. To hint; imply

Rule of thumb #5: One should know that "English" encompasses spelling, grammar, usage, diction, punctuation, and pretty much everything else having to do with the language.

English: Of or relating to the English language.

Rule of thumb #6: One should now that it's prefereble to use a word in its more precise sense rather than in a sense that's based on misuse. Further down on the very page you reference:

Usage Note: Infer is sometimes confused with imply, but the distinction is a useful one. When we say that a speaker or sentence implies something, we mean that it is conveyed or suggested without being stated outright: When the mayor said that she would not rule out a business tax increase, she implied (not inferred) that some taxes might be raised. Inference, on the other hand, is the activity performed by a reader or interpreter in drawing conclusions that are not explicit in what is said: When the mayor said that she would not rule out a tax increase, we inferred that she had been consulting with some new financial advisers, since her old advisers were in favor of tax reductions.

So, yes, you may use "infer" to mean "imply" (and may use "unique" to mean "unusual" instead of its original meaning, "one of a kind"), but you will be viewed by many as having had a deficient education if you do.

Please in this day and age if you can spell your own name and use real existing words you're a genius.