fhios said:
- It states that the war cost 70 billion. Actually, I thought it was supposed to cost a lot more at this time.
Is this a justification? How? They may be bringing the thing in below budget, but hey, if the Nazis had brought the final solution in under budget that wouldn't have justified it.
Where exactly did I say it was a justification?
I said it was an observation. I found it curious, because I occasionally hear many on the anti-war side claim that the war has already topped 100 million.
fhios said:
- Some may think that many of the 'alternate' uses given for that money (such as Public housing) are things that the government shouldn't really be involved in in the first place. Ok, I'm not in the USA, but if I were, my first thought would be "If there's money left over, cut my taxes", not "build more housing".
This is an entirely seperate issue. You'd rather see the money than in your bank account than in a habitat for humanity? Well, it still sounds like you don't want it spent on a Middle-Eastern version of Viet Nam.
Hey, if its a 'separate issue', then don't blame me, blame the original web site for linking the cost of war with housing, education, etc.
And woud I rather see the money in my bank account than in Habitat for Humanity? In a word, yes. (Actually, I think Habitat for Humanity is a charitable organization, so they're probaby not the best example you could have used.) I believe that there are enough resources available for 'poor' people (through welfare, unemployment insurance, etc.) that they should be able to afford their own housing. And any tax cut should not only help me (who is middle class, nowhere near rich), but it should help the poor too, both directly (since they will also benefit from tax cuts), and indirectly (since any extra money I have I will likely spend or invest, which will help the economy and provide more/better jobs.)
And no, I don't want the money spent if its going to be a middle east Viet Nam. But the political situation is totally different than vietnam.
I wanted to avoid any discussion of whether the war was right or wrong (it was discussed in so many other places). Note that I said "
if the world is better off". If it is better off, then all Americans (and indeed all people of the world) will benefit, whether they are rich or poor.
fhios said:
- One think I really don't like about such a counter is that it ignores 'secondary' benefits. Yes, the war is costly, but it will have some side benefits to the economy. For example, when Iraq's oil capacity is restored, the supply should cause the world price to decrease, which may benefit the economy greatly.
1) Such secondary benefits are anticipated, not certain. What if our economists are wrong?
2) Such an argument justifies the end of a human life through the money generated. Such a mentatlity would justify gladitorial games because of the concession sales.
3) In case you hadn't noticed, the Iraqis aren't letting us have any such secondary benifits. They've been sabotaging their own pipelines and whatnot to prevent us from getting at their oil. [/B]
Well, lets see...
1) the economists could be wrong, but they could also be right. (There is also no 'proof' that spending money on the areas suggested by the web site will also be beneficial to the country)
2) The 'end of human life' was not discussed on the web site, or by myself. Bringing it up here is a separate issue. (It also brings up the issue about whether more people would die from an American invasion or from continued Saddam rule, which I'd rather not go into here, for the reason I previously mentioned.)
3) The 'Sabotage' isn't being done by 'ordinary' Iraqis; its being done by people like former Saddam supporters, Ba'athites, and foreigners, and I don't think they are representative of the will of the Iraqi people. (Even if Iraq elects a government that is not friendly with the US, I doubt they will want to give up oil revenue.)
