Treasure Arithmetic in Iraq

[Silicon]

Well the "worth it" questions as far as casualties divided pretty predictably along old JREF lines.

What's "worth it" in American lives drops out to most people either saying numbers closed to zero, or numbers so astronomically high that we have carte blanche to be in Iraq for decades at the current death rate.


So let's look at money.


My questions about the war and American security come to the question of how is the money being spent.

Sure, America is safer without Saddam, but are we $200 Billion safer?

Given that Saddam was in no position to even threaten his neighbors, was he really a $200B threat?



That's $200 Billion that America will never get back. That's money poured into the sand that could have been spent on tracking down Osama, protecting our ports and chemical plants, securing loose nuclear materials around the world.... etc.

To me, that's one of the biggest failures of the Bush administration. Wasting money on the empty-threat of a braggart in the desert, rather than on real dangers that we still face, haven't gone away, and still threaten us.


So here's a new thread. How much money is "worth it"? We're at $200B. Democrats are predicting that the war might cast a total between $461 Billion and $646 Billion by 2015.

Do you support the war so much that those numbers are well within the "pay any price" motto of the neocon right?

I know, the flowers and kisses neocons promised us it'd never EVER cost even $200B before we marched in, and now we're AT $200B. So there will be some here who will say it'll never EVER be $400B, because victory is just around the corner.

Just ASSUMING that we hit $400B, would that be too much? How bout $600? $800?

Do you support the war enough to support rolling back Bush's tax cuts?

And when does American economic security and prosperity take precidence over security in Iraq.

If Iraq becomes more of a money pit, just give us a sign, what number is the point when Iraq's risks exceed the costs?

 

[crimresearch]

You conveniently forgot to mention the billions of gallons of free oil that has caused gas prices in the US to plummet and stay around 25 cents a gallon...

You know, the *real* reason we went to war.

 

[RussDill]

Would you say that the world would be better of if north korea encompassed all of korea, and south korea did not exist? Was south korea a money pit?

 

[Ziggurat]

Just ASSUMING that we hit $400B, would that be too much? How bout $600? $800?

Do you support the war enough to support rolling back Bush's tax cuts?

And when does American economic security and prosperity take precidence over security in Iraq.

If Iraq becomes more of a money pit, just give us a sign, what number is the point when Iraq's risks exceed the costs?

Alright, I'll bite: $1 trillion is my upper limit. That's what I think it's worth to try to remake the middle east. As for Bush's tax cut, well, yes, if that's what was required to finance Iraq, I'd support rolling it back (although I've grown attached to certain provisions, like increased IRA contribution limits and a marriage deduction that's actually twice the single filer deduction).

 

[BPSCG]

Given that Saddam was in no position to even threaten his neighbors, was he really a $200B threat?

He was in no position to threaten his neighbors because we were spending billions of dollars every year to protect his neighbors, and even to protect his own people that he was trying to murder (the Kurds).

That's money poured into the sand that could have been spent on tracking down Osama, protecting our ports and chemical plants, securing loose nuclear materials around the world.... etc.

Yes, money we could have spent playing nothing but defense (and are you saying we're not trying to capture Osama?). If your defenses aren't perfect, then what? Here in Our Nation's Capital, we just finished a football season cheering for a team that had one of the best defenses in the NFL, and the lousiest offense. They finished the year 6-10.

To me, that's one of the biggest failures of the Bush administration. Wasting money on the empty-threat of a braggart in the desert, rather than on real dangers that we still face, haven't gone away, and still threaten us.

Remember the domino theory of communism? If we let one domino in the far east fall, they'd all fall? It didn't really work out that way.

But it seems to actually be playing out in the middle east, with Iraq and Afghanistan the first dominoes. Then Libya decides it's giving up on its nuclear ambitions (less money we have to spend dealing with that nuclear threat - did you include that in your calculus?) Pakistan is still a dictatorship, but is suddenly a lot friendlier today than it was three years ago. Saudi Arabia actually had elections last week. Now Lebanon is starting to rise against its Syrian occupiers; let's hope we keep the pressure on Syria - they seem to be a litle nervous these days. We're putting pressure on Egypt to democratize, and even though Mubarak is trying to keep a tight grip, he doesn't seem able to crush all dissent. And the Iranian mullahs are as unpopular as ever, and are wondering what they will do when their population finally says "enough!" and storms the palaces. Even the Palestinians have had true elections and are actually behaving in such a way that even that beast Ariel Sharon is willing to sit down and talk with them.

Try to tell me that all of this would have happened without the example of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Now try to tell me that without laughing.

In short, it's not being a wild-eyed optimist to think that ten years from now, the middle east might be largely democratic.

Is that worth $200 billion?

I think so.

Do you support the war so much that those numbers are well within the "pay any price" motto of the neocon right?

When did JFK become a neocon?

 

[crimresearch]

Do you support the war so much that those numbers are well within the "pay any price" motto of the neocon right?


ROTFLMAO!!!


Like Beeps said:

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres56.html

 

[Silicon]

Re: Re: Treasure Arithmetic in Iraq

When did JFK become a neocon?

I was quoting YOUR quoting of JFK to me in the other arithmetic thread. Apparantly he's your hero.

Wow, I guess $200 billion is a bargain, then. We should spend $500B more!

You really think all those things are being accomplished by turning Iraq into an Iran-style theocracy? The entire middle east will be transformed, and we only had to bomb 2 of 20 countries?

No danger of civil war in Lebanon. No new allied Syria and Iran. No danger of Pakistan's Nukes for Sale any longer. Stop worrying about Libya and their stronger ties to Al Queida than Saddam ever had. No problem with islamic militants in Darfor. There is no danger of violent revolution in Saudi Arabia. Iran won't get nukes and threaten Israel. The Kurds WON'T get attacked by Turkey. Worry NOT! All those dominoes are falling, as we speak! No more threat from that entire region of the globe, because we caught Saddam in his hidey hole at a cost of $200B.

Dominoes! Dammit!

I fail to see any actual rational evidence of any domino effect. Unless those dominoes are setting themselves up one after the other. We seem to have more dominoes threatening stability in the area than we had before the invasion of Iraq.

Now we got Syria in the Axis. Dangit if new axis members keep sprouting up.


Caught Osama yet?


Just checking.

 

[BPSCG]

Re: Re: Re: Treasure Arithmetic in Iraq

I was quoting YOUR quoting of JFK to me in the other arithmetic thread.

I'm not asking for a reminder of what I wrote. I'm asking when John F. Kennedy became a neocon.

Apparantly he's your hero.

And obviously not yours. Who is, if I may ask?

Wow, I guess $200 billion is a bargain, then.

If it gets the world a stable, democratic middle east, it isn't a bargain. It's a goddam steal. It works out to less than a thousand bucks per U.S. citizen. Is that too pricey for you? Maybe you want to haggle with the middle east bad guys? They're supposed to enjoy it.

We should spend $500B more!

Or roughly another $2,500 per person. You don't think it's worth it? You are a cheapskate, aren't you?

The entire middle east will be transformed, and we only had to bomb 2 of 20 countries?

No danger of civil war in Lebanon. No new allied Syria and Iran. No danger of Pakistan's Nukes for Sale any longer. Stop worrying about Libya and their stronger ties to Al Queida than Saddam ever had. No problem with islamic militants in Darfor. There is no danger of violent revolution in Saudi Arabia. Iran won't get nukes and threaten Israel. The Kurds WON'T get attacked by Turkey.

I see. The Silicon calculus is to not spend one damned penny unless we are guaranteed perfect democracy everywhere.

If that is incorrect, then what do you believe the correct price tag should be? Keep in mind, all the bad guys you cite above are willing to spend plenty.

 

[Silicon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Treasure Arithmetic in Iraq

I see. The Silicon calculus is to not spend one damned penny unless we are guaranteed perfect democracy everywhere.

You likes you the straw, dontya?

Where have I said anything of the sort?

I said, "This is expensive, and we aren't getting value for the money."

You said, "The dominoes are falling, we've got regional stability coming that will pay dividends far beyond just Iraq."

I said "It doesn't look like they're falling, in fact there's more now than there were before Iraq. Any evidence for a domino effect?"

You shrilly ran for the extreme: "OH YEAH, Well YOU believe we shouldn't spend a damn penny until we are guaranteed perfect democracy EVERYWHERE!!!"

WTF? Is that reasoned argument to you? Running to the extreme so that I either have to defend your straw position or agree with you?


You need better arguing skills, computer hacking skills or bow-hunting skills to impress chicks.

 

[BPSCG]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Treasure Arithmetic in Iraq

I said, "This is expensive, and we aren't getting value for the money."

And I asked you what you thought a good price should be.

(...crickets...)

You said, "The dominoes are falling, we've got regional stability coming that will pay dividends far beyond just Iraq."

Oh, my, I can see we have someone who doesn't recognize the difference between someone's saying something is possible and saying it's certain. Let me refresh your memory and show you the words you missed (or deliberately left out in order to twist what I was saying?):

But it seems to actually be playing out in the middle east,

(...snip...)

In short, it's not being a wild-eyed optimist to think that ten years from now, the middle east might be largely democratic.

You shrilly ran for the extreme: "OH YEAH, Well YOU believe we shouldn't spend a damn penny until we are guaranteed perfect democracy EVERYWHERE!!!"

WTF? Is that reasoned argument to you? Running to the extreme so that I either have to defend your straw position or agree with you?

Then correct my extreme position. Tell me how much you believe we should be willing to pay. When Orsino asked me what we should be willing to pay (in lives) I gave him a forthright answer. When you asked if I thought $200 billion was worth it, I gave you a forthright answer.

For the record, I did acknowledge that my conclusion that you were not prepared to pay one damned penny might be wrong. Last paragraph of my previous post. Or did you skip that part, too?

You need better arguing skills, computer hacking skills or bow-hunting skills to impress chicks.

When I need your advice on how to pick up chicks, you'll be the second one to know.

As regards debating skills, I do know that you shouldn't ask a question that you're not prepared to have turned around on you.

You are going to answer mine, aren't you?

 

[kalen]

Indeed. Follow the money and you shall find the answers. Money makes the world go 'round, as they say.

Much of the money is being paid to American firms for "security services", "logistical support", and "rebuilding." The soldiers have to get paid, too, but I imagine it pales in comparison. (note to self: check this out) This means that a handful of stockholders in corporations such as Bechtel, Halliburton, and Parsons are raking in the dough hand over fist. What this amounts to is a transfer of money from the average American taxpayer to a handful of already wealthy people. But that is expected in a free market society, I guess.

A breakdown of where all the money is going would be very enlightening, I'm sure.

 

[Silicon]

Too much money.

A penny diverted from catching Osama was a penny too much.

We were attacked in cold blood by a group of merciless killers. We should have fought back, and continued to fight and fight and fight until there was no breath left in Al Queda or it's ideology of evil.


Instead we went looking for a fight against a paper tiger. All the top military leaders in America said as much.

Iraq was a war of opportunity.

Al Queida is a threat and remains as big a threat as ever.

We wasted an opportunity to secure America, while the president went chasing phantom WMD's in the desert.

 

[Silicon]

Beeps,

You think that $200B is worth it. That's what we're at now, and counting. What's your top number?

Myself, I think it's wasted money. We might get some stability and value out of it, but not dollar-for-dollar the security America could get had it spent that money chasing Osama, building alternatives to Mahdrassas, securing our ports, chemical sites, loose nukes worldwide, etc.

Sure, a maserati is "worth it" in that you do actually have a usable car once you pay your 200,000 or whatever.

But not the wisest choice when you need that money elsewhere where it would do more good.

I think we've spent way too much. The previous gulf war cost us only about $60B. That was a wise investment. Of course a much greater share of the costs were borne by our coalition partners. I guess it helps not to piss off the rest of the world.


Back in the day, the Neocons said over and over that the costs of invading Iraq would be only about $60-$100 B, and when some generals said it would be $200B or more they were ridiculed and ostracized by the Neocons.

Man those Neocons love spending other people's money. In the private sector when someone bids you too low, they have to come in at that price. Too bad we can't sue Pearle and Wolfowitz and the American Enterprise Institute for the rest of our war costs!

Assuming we could have set our own price for a Stable Iraq? Well as far as American power goes, Iraq WAS stable, as in not a significant threat to the reigon. So whatever our patrolling the No Fly Zone was costing was keeping it stable.

Whatever we WERE paying was a good price for stability in the reigon. We could afford that level to keep the lid on while we protected America from the threat of Islamic terrorism.

 

[Ziggurat]

Much of the money is being paid to American firms for "security services", "logistical support", and "rebuilding." The soldiers have to get paid, too, but I imagine it pales in comparison. (note to self: check this out) This means that a handful of stockholders in corporations such as Bechtel, Halliburton, and Parsons are raking in the dough hand over fist. What this amounts to is a transfer of money from the average American taxpayer to a handful of already wealthy people. But that is expected in a free market society, I guess.

A breakdown of where all the money is going would be very enlightening, I'm sure.

I'm sure indeed. Funny thing, though, Halliburton hasn't made large profits in Iraq - their profit margins on Iraq rebuilding and supply contracts are between 2 and 3 percent, which is really not that much, and not particularly profitable. They get far more money, and far better margins, on their more traditional existing energy industry services - as in, the ones that don't have anything to do with Iraq. When people imply, contrary to the facts, that Halliburton is somehow making huge profits from Iraq (and hence implying that we invaded in order to divert public money to them), it shows that they clearly do not understand economics.

 

[Tex]

A small percentage of billions of dollars is still a lot of money. And just because Halliburton didn't succeed in making huge profits, doesn't mean that they didn't intend to, and doesn't mean that corporate profits weren't a reason for the war. Cui bono? With as much as a third of the cost of the war going to private contractors, the whole thing looks like the ultimate boondoggle.

 

[RussDill]

A small percentage of billions of dollars is still a lot of money. And just because Halliburton didn't succeed in making huge profits, doesn't mean that they didn't intend to, and doesn't mean that corporate profits weren't a reason for the war. Cui bono? With as much as a third of the cost of the war going to private contractors, the whole thing looks like the ultimate boondoggle.

Then why not pick a method of paying off private contractors that gives much higher rates of return?

 

[Ziggurat]

A small percentage of billions of dollars is still a lot of money. And just because Halliburton didn't succeed in making huge profits, doesn't mean that they didn't intend to, and doesn't mean that corporate profits weren't a reason for the war. Cui bono? With as much as a third of the cost of the war going to private contractors, the whole thing looks like the ultimate boondoggle.

Man, you REALLY don't understand economics. 2-3% profit means that they'd have done just as well staying out of Iraq and just buying treasuries with that money instead, at zero risk. Cui bono, indeed. Funny thing, though: if this administration is supposedly so in the pocket of military contractors, why did they cancel the Crusader artillery system? That would have been guaranteed massively profitable, far more so than the Iraq war, and who would have protested if they just maintained a system that previous administrations had started? Maybe, just maybe, things aren't as simplistic as your narrow and cliched worldview would suggest.

 

[peptoabysmal]

Let's see, Libya disarmed. Syria is pulling out of Lebanon. Palestinian authorities are now arresting terrorists. (Granted, the last one is mostly due to the death of Arafat). The list goes on.

Oh yeah, BTW; the US hasn't been attacked on US soil again since 9/11.

Would these changes be taking place without the Iraq war and the images of blue fingers? I think not.

"Worth it" is completely relative to one's own values no matter what the meter is; human life, money, oil, whatever.

How much "worth it" has it been to increase the size of government and social spending programs? I don't let Bush off the hook for this, he is as guilty as any politician who wants to get elected.

Grandfather Economic Report series

How do we justify this extra drain per family drain for government? The author could not find any justification, since education quality is less today than before and less than foreign nations, crime rates are higher, the percentage of families without 2 parents is higher, real median family incomes are not climbing long-term as in the past, and household debt ratios are climbing to record levels while personal savings rates are falling.

 

[Tex]

Man, you REALLY don't understand economics. 2-3% profit means that they'd have done just as well staying out of Iraq and just buying treasuries with that money instead, at zero risk. Cui bono, indeed. Funny thing, though: if this administration is supposedly so in the pocket of military contractors, why did they cancel the Crusader artillery system? That would have been guaranteed massively profitable, far more so than the Iraq war, and who would have protested if they just maintained a system that previous administrations had started? Maybe, just maybe, things aren't as simplistic as your narrow and cliched worldview would suggest.

When I said "just because Halliburton didn't succeed in making huge profits, doesn't mean that they didn't intend to" I was implying that perhaps Halliburton expected higher margins than 2-3%. That they didn't actually succeed in that regard is irrelevant to the point. Are you implying that Halliburton knew beforehand that they would only be making 2-3% profit and still decided to take part instead of buying treasuries? Maybe they don't know anything about economics.

 

[Tex]

Man, you REALLY don't understand economics. 2-3% profit means that they'd have done just as well staying out of Iraq and just buying treasuries with that money instead, at zero risk. Cui bono, indeed. Funny thing, though: if this administration is supposedly so in the pocket of military contractors, why did they cancel the Crusader artillery system? That would have been guaranteed massively profitable, far more so than the Iraq war, and who would have protested if they just maintained a system that previous administrations had started? Maybe, just maybe, things aren't as simplistic as your narrow and cliched worldview would suggest.

Actually, scratch my previous response; it's even simpler than that. Your logic appears to be flawed. Where would the money to buy treasuries come from in the first place if they didn't accept the Iraq contracts? Suppose someone offered you $1 billion to do some job. You figure out that the job would cost around $0.97 billion to execute. So you turn it down because it would only net you around 3% and you could get better returns via other investments. Sucker. You just lost out on $30 million. Unless you were talking about the government rather than Halliburton "staying out of Iraq and buying treasuries" but in that case the money would be in the public coffers rather than in somebody's pocket. You can't profit off public funds without a boondoggle to spend them on.