NationStates Jolt Archive

The purpose of taxes is to benefit the people who pay them, and so I wonder, isn't Iraq a waste of money?

A few other questions that go with this is, when is war not a waste of money? And if a war only profits certain corporations, is it justified to use the army everyone pays for? And can we just let large corporations build their own armys if they want to go and make war?

if we win (and we damne well better)

we make up all the money we're spending on taxes with the trade that otherwise wouldn't have happened

Screw the iraqi people. We should just conquer the provinces which have oil and let the iraqis do whatever the hell they want to do with eachother(on a side note we should set up cameras everywhere and make a great new reality show called Battlefield Iraq :cool: )

Yes, we really haven't made any money from the war, and we still lose jobs.

IRT #3

You, my sir, are a genius.

Yes, we really haven't made any money from the war, and we still lose jobs.


but the war created jobs and most of the money was just put back into American companies

on Iraqs oil, I read that it was done
for political reasons at the time,
I think he made a political mistake,
he would have been more popular
campaingnin on the iraq war had he done so.

It could have been done over a number of years
no intrest owed, or an exchange of a certain
amount of oil per year.

I think he is supposed to ask for money on the war,
maybe now he could aprove it.

I think there was a republican congressman or senator,
I think from Indiana but I dont remember who or from what state
that tried to
pass a bill to do that, if someone can give me the name
of that person and post it and or telegram me, I would
be curious to know, thank You.

Yes, especially since most of the people benefitting are the most of the people who financed Shrubya's campaigns.

but the war created jobs and most of the money was just put back into American companies
You pay the cost of war with taxes and the profits go to companies. I would be pissed.

There's actually a debate about this? Of course it's a waste of money - just look at what could have been done with the money. www.costofwar.com (http://www.costofwar.com)

There's actually a debate about this? Of course it's a waste of money - just look at what could have been done with the money. www.costofwar.com (http://www.costofwar.com)

If the debate is so clear, cut, and dry, I don't see how anyone could still possibly support the war in Iraq. I was hoping to see some counterpoint.

Oh well, anyway, I love that site.

It's far too early to know if Iraq is a waste of money or not. I'm pretty sure the Marshall Plan was seen as a waste when it was first started. But now it's seen as a brilliant move that revitalized Western Europe. Wait 5-10 years before declaring Iraq a total waste.

It's far too early to know if Iraq is a waste of money or not. I'm pretty sure the Marshall Plan was seen as a waste when it was first started. But now it's seen as a brilliant move that revitalized Western Europe. Wait 5-10 years before declaring Iraq a total waste.
I'm not so sure if Marshall Plan had any meaningful effect. Feel free to inform me, I can be very wrong. I feel like this because Finland never took any aid and I think we have been quite successful.

For Finland, I think you're right. I don't think the Marshall Plan had much effect. But it totally rebuilt the infrastructure of France and Germany.

I always knew it was a tremendous wast of $. If we invested half the money spent on Iraq into rebuilding Afghanistan it could have been drug-free, and a shining example of American Generosity to the muslim world.

First of all, i defeneatly think, that war is always a waste of money.
But in this case Bush is clearly just using a hell of lot money of the country, to get some money himself. Cause like we know Bush owns a part of a big oli company. And certainly he also cares more about the wellfare of american bisnessmen than thousands of innocent iraqian people.

Its not not a waste of money.

Its not not a waste of money.
Because?

Its not not a waste of money.


LOL, by your reasoning there it IS a waste of money! (If it's not NOT a waste of money it HAS to be a waste of money)

THe only people who will make any kind of money out of a war (particularly this one seeing as this is the one of the moment) is the government sponsored companies who win huge contracts to go in and rebuild. Where will the cash from?
My guess is Iraq oil.

If Democracy is established there it is a good use of money. If it isn't we've failed and wasted money and live in the process.

If Democracy is established there it is a good use of money. If it isn't we've failed and wasted money and live in the process.
What if they democratically elect a fundamentalist muslim government that gives funds and sanctuary to Al Quaeda? Was the money well spent then? There's a good chance that they will elect anti-American people into power.

What if they democratically elect a fundamentalist muslim government that gives funds and sanctuary to Al Quaeda? Was the money well spent then? There's a good chance that they will elect anti-American people into power.

Speculate, speculate, speculate. There is a chance they will elect some anti-American people, that is true. However, I think there is less of a chance of the government itself being anti-American. While the insurgents are the squeekiest wheel, it's doubtful that they reflect the feelings of the average Iraqi.

Speculate, speculate, speculate. There is a chance they will elect some anti-American people, that is true. However, I think there is less of a chance of the government itself being anti-American. While the insurgents are the squeekiest wheel, it's doubtful that they reflect the feelings of the average Iraqi.
While it is true that the average Iraqi doesn't want to use violence against Americans, the average Iraqi does want to have a Muslim theocracy.

While it is true that the average Iraqi doesn't want to use violence against Americans, the average Iraqi does want to have a Muslim theocracy.

While it is true that many of Iraq's religious leaders are ahead in many polls, this doesn't necessarily indicate a Mullahocracy. With the fall of the Bathist government, religious leaders are the closest thing to "celebrity" the nation has, and most of the religious leaders polling well are not hostile to democracy. I don't see any of this as surprising.

While it is true that many of Iraq's religious leaders are ahead in many polls, this doesn't necessarily indicate a Mullahocracy. With the fall of the Bathist government, religious leaders are the closest thing to "celebrity" the nation has, and most of the religious leaders polling well are not hostile to democracy. I don't see any of this as surprising.
Exactly. The USA didn't become a military regime just because the first president it elected was a general.

While it is true that many of Iraq's religious leaders are ahead in many polls, this doesn't necessarily indicate a Mullahocracy. With the fall of the Bathist government, religious leaders are the closest thing to "celebrity" the nation has, and most of the religious leaders polling well are not hostile to democracy. I don't see any of this as surprising.
While it is true that that doesn't necessarily indicate a Mullahocracy, the fact that many religious leaders are ahead in the polls isn't the only indicator that Iraqis wish to have a Mullahocracy.

but the war created jobs and most of the money was just put back into American companies

You're ignorant of economics. Warfare destroys wealth. To believe otherwise is to fall for the "broken window fallacy", where the act of breaking a shopkeeper's window is thought to be good for the economy because of the work and commerce required to replace the window. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/warandeconomy.html

While it is true that that doesn't necessarily indicate a Mullahocracy, the fact that many religious leaders are ahead in the polls isn't the only indicator that Iraqis wish to have a Mullahocracy.

It is a main indicator of the preference of the Iraqi people as to who they want representing them. In a practical sense, the only indicator that matters is who they vote for. While I'm sure the average Iraqi doesn't want their government completely divorced from religion, that sentiment is a far cry from theocracy.

You're ignorant of economics. Warfare destroys wealth. To believe otherwise is to fall for the "broken window fallacy", where the act of breaking a shopkeeper's window is thought to be good for the economy because of the work and commerce required to replace the window. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/warandeconomy.html

Or also see

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

Unless we have some Iraqi's posting to this thread, I don't believe any of us westerners can say what the average Iraqi wants. Being one who watches both the US corporate media line as well as the real left wing news programs like Democracy Now and who reads some of the left wing papers from England and India every now and then I'm left doubting if we in the west really understand the dynamics of what is going on in Iraq.

As far as whether it's been a waste of money, US government , and the current administration in particular, does one thing realy well and that's waste money. Doesn't matter if it's Iraq or the various pork barrel projects congress and the senate slip through the budget every year.

Unless we have some Iraqi's posting to this thread, I don't believe any of us westerners can say what the average Iraqi wants. Being one who watches both the US corporate media line as well as the real left wing news programs like Democracy Now and who reads some of the left wing papers from England and India every now and then I'm left doubting if we in the west really understand the dynamics of what is going on in Iraq.

...because you know, it's the left-wing media like Democracy Now, that has the real scoop

Like Fox News does? Not really, but all the voices together tell me that no one really has a freakin clue. At least I try to see both sides of the coin.

How about a waste of innocent life ??????????

Like Fox News does? Not really, but all the voices together tell me that no one really has a freakin clue. At least I try to see both sides of the coin.
You should consider the coin counterfeit.

Gnerally not worth a plug nickel! :D

The purpose of taxes is to benefit the people who pay them, and so I wonder, isn't Iraq a waste of money?

A few other questions that go with this is, when is war not a waste of money? And if a war only profits certain corporations, is it justified to use the army everyone pays for? And can we just let large corporations build their own armys if they want to go and make war?

If your assumption is unproven (taxes benefit payers), THEN ALL ELSE THAT FOLLOWS IS MEANINGLESS.

If your assumption is unproven (taxes benefit payers), THEN ALL ELSE THAT FOLLOWS IS MEANINGLESS.

what are you talking about? of course that's the purpose of taxes. people benifit from governance, by paying taxes government continues to exist, and people continue to have access to justice, protection and a social safety net. it's self-evident that people benefit from a lack of chaos caused by government. so what you just said was really just pointless.

(wow, from this post you really couldn't guess about my anarchist leanings)

Like Fox News does? Not really, but all the voices together tell me that no one really has a freakin clue. At least I try to see both sides of the coin.


So do I, but I must admit that Democracy NOW doesn't represent the most fair and by extention accurate piece of media out there. FoxNews might be biased, but nowhere near the degree that DN is.

So do I, but I must admit that Democracy NOW doesn't represent the most fair and by extention accurate piece of media out there. FoxNews might be biased, but nowhere near the degree that DN is.
I can't speak for all of FoxNews, but Bill O'Reilly is far more biased than Democracy Now is.

While I'm sure the average Iraqi doesn't want their government completely divorced from religion, that sentiment is a far cry from theocracy.I suppose, then, that we have different ideas of what constitutes a theocracy.

I can't speak for all of FoxNews, but Bill O'Reilly is far more biased than Democracy Now is.


Bill O'Rielly is a tool. But he supports minimum wage laws, supports social welfare, and is often critical of the Bush administration. Perhaps he's more biased because his criticism falls short of calling Bush a liar. I don't see DN criticising people and policies of the left. I admit, however, that I can only stand so much of DN (or FoxNews for that matter...I'd personally like to see Sean Hannity flogged).

I suppose, then, that we have different ideas of what constitutes a theocracy.

If you think that because a government chooses to pay respects to some sort of God as a "theocracy" then I think you cast the net too wide. I don't care about window dressing such as official statements to the effect that Iraq is a Muslim nation, which obviously they are. I care about womens' rights and the implementation of civil law that will more or less respect the rights of the individual (speech, etc.).

I can't speak for all of FoxNews, but Bill O'Reilly is far more biased than Democracy Now is.
Democracy Now says Bush melts the skin off people in Fallujah. Done now?

Democracy Now says Bush melts the skin off people in Fallujah. Done now?
That's interesting, I've never heard that. Could you clarify?

If you think that because a government chooses to pay respects to some sort of God as a "theocracy" then I think you cast the net too wide. I don't care about window dressing such as official statements to the effect that Iraq is a Muslim nation, which obviously they are. I care about womens' rights and the implementation of civil law that will more or less respect the rights of the individual (speech, etc.).
No, I think that if a government uses that God and what that God says to make its laws, and only that, then the government is a theocracy.

That's interesting, I've never heard that. Could you clarify?
Look in Democracy Now for Headlines on November 12th.

Who gives a rats ass about money being wasted when there is lives being wasted?

We have to spend $ now because we're there and can't abandon the situation, but the original decision was terribly costly in many ways.

maybe we could save a few bucks by cutting back our aid to Israel.

If your assumption is unproven (taxes benefit payers), THEN ALL ELSE THAT FOLLOWS IS MEANINGLESS.

I realize Greyevonol County made a good response to this, but I thought as it was attacking my words perhaps I should introduce another arguement to you as well.

If my asumption is true, then etc.

But if my assumption is false, then again, why would we even pay taxes at all, including paying the taxes towards the Iraqi war? Unless you're suggesting that taxes are paid solely because the government forces us to pay them, and they have nothing to do with us. Otherwise, etc.

No, I think that if a government uses that God and what that God says to make its laws, and only that, then the government is a theocracy.

I think a theocracy is government that is a religious institution. Such as Vatican City (an extreme example).

but the war created jobs and most of the money was just put back into American companies
Yes! Godd companies such as Halliburton, Kellog Brown&Root, Lockheed Martin, Boenig, ect. All of which pay normal workers minimum wage. Real boost for the economy. :rolleyes:

Who gives a rats ass about money being wasted when there is lives being wasted?

Regrettably, it is easier to hit people interest with their wallets than their hearts.

bump

Who gives a rats ass about money being wasted when there is lives being wasted?

Live are important, but wasting money effectively wastes lives. The government is destroying the wealth of the American people when it blows up bombs that destroy Iraqis. The less wealth we have, the less we can afford to take care ourselves and others.

but if Iraq goes well our government will make billions off the taxes of the American companies that will do buissiness there, not to mention the hundreds of billions of dollars the American ecconomy will will get from this new market

but that of course assumes that W can get America to stay with Iraq for the next 20 or so years

We started it, so we'd better have the honor to set Iraq back up again.

I think a theocracy is government that is a religious institution. Such as Vatican City (an extreme example).
What about a government that governs itself as though it were a religious institution?

I always knew it was a tremendous wast of $. If we invested half the money spent on Iraq into rebuilding Afghanistan it could have been drug-free, and a shining example of American Generosity to the muslim world.

That makes perfect sense! Spend money on a third world country and make it drug free while your own country continues to drown in it. Clean up your own yard first!

What about a government that governs itself as though it were a religious institution?

I think if its officials are synonymous with clergymen, then yes.

bump

but the war created jobs and most of the money was just put back into American companies

I smell a capitalist pig! Yeah, back into multi-Billion dollar companys such as Halliburton, it has ruined our surplus, and our defecit is higher than ever. You know not what your talking about.