NationStates Jolt Archive

Given the increasingly fragile state of the US economy can it afford to continue the Iraq war? I have seen a figure (from the Democrats so obviously to be taken with a pinch of salt) of it costing $195 million a day. Given the credit crunch, house foreclosures, increasing fuel costs is the additional cost of the war going to have a similar effect as the cold war on the Russian economy? If not for how much longer is that level of expenditure sustainable?

But if the US isn't at war with someone, then what will the people be afraid of? Really, read 1984.

It all depends... how much cash flow do the schools have left?

Well, you can always cut "welfare" spending like education. Defending America is more important than maintaining it. ;)

of course we can afford the iraq war. we are putting it on our governmental credit cards to be paid off by our children and grandchildren after we are dead.

the question is SHOULD we afford the iraq war and the answer is NO.

the question is SHOULD we afford the iraq war and the answer is NO.I'd say yes, actually, because if we don't, the Iraqis end up footing the bill for us breaking their country.

cool graph that somewhat fits the topic. (http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/11/14/1482/)

With oil nearing a hundred dollars a barrel I think the Iraqis can afford to fix their own problems. At least they don't have to live in fear of there own President now. But I do think its time to leave Iraq now and get back to actually chasing Benny down.

At least they don't have to live in fear of there own President now.

No, they live in fear of someone else's.

With oil nearing a hundred dollars a barrel I think the Iraqis can afford to fix their own problems.

.....but the US privatised the Iraqi oil industry, didn't they? And didn't they put in an extremely low corporation tax regime?

I have a question.

Where is all the money going?

If it is costing about 200 million dollars a day, what is that money being spent on?

A lot of it must go to paying soldiers, which is then reintroduced into the US economy when it is spent on food, bills and the other things that people need.

The same could be said for payouts to Halliburton and other US corporations. If these coroporations are then using those funds to purchase goods or services in the US economy, that would boost the economy too.

I may not know a lot about economics, but I know that when people are spending money, it infuses the overall economy with money, and this is good.

So maybe we should be discussing what would happen to the US economy if the US government didn't go to war?

I'd say yes, actually, because if we don't, the Iraqis end up footing the bill for us breaking their country.

that wouldnt be war, it would be reconstruction. its implied in the bill we have already racked up. yes we owe that debt too. but maybe if we get out they can begin to pump the oil that will give them the money to make iraq the country it should be.

.....but the US privatised the Iraqi oil industry, didn't they? And didn't they put in an extremely low corporation tax regime?
Even if these companies do pay Iraqi taxes, which I doubt.

...

Doesn't that make Iraq a libertarian utopia?

I have a question.

Where is all the money going?

If it is costing about 200 million dollars a day, what is that money being spent on?

A lot of it must go to paying soldiers, which is then reintroduced into the US economy when it is spent on food, bills and the other things that people need.

The same could be said for payouts to Halliburton and other US corporations. If these coroporations are then using those funds to purchase goods or services in the US economy, that would boost the economy too.

I may not know a lot about economics, but I know that when people are spending money, it infuses the overall economy with money, and this is good.

So maybe we should be discussing what would happen to the US economy if the US government didn't go to war?
/hears the sound of a million Internet conspiracy theorists -- almost consumed by fears of the military-industrial complex -- slavering and preparing to pounce in reply.

Even if these companies do pay Iraqi taxes, which I doubt.

...

Doesn't that make Iraq a libertarian utopia?

Why, yes, in sense. The "free market" was supposed to sort it all out and make everybody better. It was the people from the Heritage Foundation and the like who where the influential ones afterall....I tend to refer to them as "fucking scum" or "legitimate targets" depending on the mood I'm in.

With oil nearing a hundred dollars a barrel I think the Iraqis can afford to fix their own problems.
Keep in mind that :

a) The Iraqis don't really own that oil
b) The dollar is currently weak like some kind of undernourished monetary kitten
c) It keeps getting set on fire, and the suppliers insure buyers for that

So, no, they can't.
At least they don't have to live in fear of there own President now.
As the success so far of the troop surge has shown, the more troops the better on the streets, as far as stopping violence goes. Hussein had the right kind of idea, all things considered.
But I do think its time to leave Iraq now
Eugh, no. This would be just about the worst time to leave Iraq. They're just starting to get back on their own feet, and there are less and less attacks. We don't really want to leave for the next 5 or so years, when they might plausibly be able to hold their own a bit.

The Iraqi army is still pretty rubbish and the police are still very corrupt. We don't want to leave the Iraqis to the tender mercies of the militias, do we?
and get back to actually chasing Benny down.
Oh, because there's a whole load of use in that?

that wouldnt be war, it would be reconstruction. its implied in the bill we have already racked up. yes we owe that debt too. but maybe if we get out they can begin to pump the oil that will give them the money to make iraq the country it should be.Well, to be honest, we've removed the one institution that was oppressing the different militias and militants that are trying to get other people to do what they want at gunpoint. The oil flow can easily be disrupted, as has been seen in other oil rich countries such as Nigeria, if extremist groups deliberately target the infrastructure. The general inability of the Iraqi government to defend itself is going to make it difficult for them to profit from their natural resources. Currently the Kurdish areas are the ones supplying a lot of oil, and these are stable primarily because the terrorist organizations there hate Turkey more than the US and are receiving indirect support from the US, due to the US supporting their sister terrorist groups in Iran.

One reason why I'm so pissed off that we went to war in the first place was that it would open a pandora's box that Iraq wouldn't be able to close on its own for a long time afterwards and the US would either be tied down for years on end, or would abandon the Iraqis to the mess we created.

What a waist of human life. It is time for the Region to take care of its own.:headbang:

/hears the sound of a million Internet conspiracy theorists -- almost consumed by fears of the military-industrial complex -- slavering and preparing to pounce in reply.

The OP seems to be looking at the Iraq war and the US economy as if the US economy was a bank account and the US had to withdraw money to pay for the war.

It doesn't work that way. Again, I know very little about economics, but I know this is wrong.

Let's use a bullet as an example.

The soldier fires a bullet. The US govt paid for that bullet. They paid some US bullet company for it. The company uses that money from the US govt to pay the employess, who in turn buy bread and milk and Nintendo games. The money is still in the US economy. And because it's being spent, it's actually improving the economy, according to my limited knowledge of economic matters.

Consequently, the more bullets fired, the better it is for the economy.

Consequently, the more bullets fired, the better it is for the economy.

You are right, you know very little about economics. Every time a bullet is fired the value added in creating it goes up in smoke, somebodies labour wasted forever. Cash flowing around an economy is a good thing - but the money doesn't appear from nowhere, it is essentially created by people's labour, which in the case of the bullet is then lost to the economy forever.

The OP seems to be looking at the Iraq war and the US economy as if the US economy was a bank account and the US had to withdraw money to pay for the war.

It doesn't work that way. Again, I know very little about economics, but I know this is wrong.

Let's use a bullet as an example.

The soldier fires a bullet. The US govt paid for that bullet. They paid some US bullet company for it. The company uses that money from the US govt to pay the employess, who in turn buy bread and milk and Nintendo games. The money is still in the US economy. And because it's being spent, it's actually improving the economy, according to my limited knowledge of economic matters.

Consequently, the more bullets fired, the better it is for the economy.
Yep, yep. I get it, trust me. I hadn't intended to contradict or contest your post in any way.

I was just making light of the fact that this whole "war is good for the economy" line of reasoning, wherein money spent on the war gets channeled back into the agressor's economy, is a favourite rallying call for some flavours of conspiracy nuts. (It's also true, but then those little grains of truth are what makes a lot of conspiracies so compelling for so many people).

Another failure for a text-only post by Longhaul :p

You are right, you know very little about economics. Every time a bullet is fired the value added in creating it goes up in smoke, somebodies labour wasted forever. Cash flowing around an economy is a good thing - but the money doesn't appear from nowhere, it is essentially created by people's labour, which in the case of the bullet is then lost to the economy forever.

That last sentence was more for dramatic effect than for debating accuracy.

Right now, you're getting into the nature of waste in an economy. Depending how you define things, waste can be good for an economy, or bad.

But my point stands regardless. I don't know if the war is causing a net loss or net gain for the US economy, and my logic tells me that it is not obvious that it is a loss and may well be a gain. So, if someone can show us that the war is harming the US economy, and how, we can get onto answering the questions in the OP.

You are right, you know very little about economics. Every time a bullet is fired the value added in creating it goes up in smoke, somebodies labour wasted forever. Cash flowing around an economy is a good thing - but the money doesn't appear from nowhere, it is essentially created by people's labour, which in the case of the bullet is then lost to the economy forever.He's got a point though. Iraq was something that boosted the US economy when it started. Particularly those lucrative reconstruction contracts that were handed out...

Let's use a bullet as an example.

The soldier fires a bullet. The US govt paid for that bullet. They paid some US bullet company for it. The company uses that money from the US govt to pay the employess, who in turn buy bread and milk and Nintendo games. The money is still in the US economy. And because it's being spent, it's actually improving the economy, according to my limited knowledge of economic matters.

Consequently, the more bullets fired, the better it is for the economy.

That might work, if it generated a positive income.

Here's what it looks like to me.

The government buys a bullet. The soldier fires the bullet. The bullet is now scrap, and worth only a fraction of its value, if at all. The money used for the bullet is returned into the local economy.

However, no positive value is being generated. This means that the government must print currency to pay for its debts (or release bonds), devaluing the currency.

So while its true that more money is being flushed into the system, due to the increased supply of money without net gain in value, the purchasing power of money goes down, creating inflation, which I suppose to some people would look like economic growth.

But you have to remember, it's only a temporary bubble. Due to sudden increased demand in goods, the profit margins of suppliers go up. However, you still have a net loss in the worth of currency, meaning that the eventually, the bubble bursts, either due to the end of whatever reasons for growth, or the fact that you've got hyper inflation and toilet paper is worth more than money.

In either case, it's a net loss.

No, we can't.


Next question.

That might work, if it generated a positive income.

Here's what it looks like to me.

The government buys a bullet. The soldier fires the bullet. The bullet is now scrap, and worth only a fraction of its value, if at all. The money used for the bullet is returned into the local economy.

However, no positive value is being generated. This means that the government must print currency to pay for its debts (or release bonds), devaluing the currency.

So while its true that more money is being flushed into the system, due to the increased supply of money without net gain in value, the purchasing power of money goes down, creating inflation, which I suppose to some people would look like economic growth.

But it's still a net loss.

Sounds logical to me. But that rationale could be applied to all military ventures, as they don't generate positive value. Unless you count the resource acquisition and economic control that comes with winning a war as a positive value. I'm thinking that in economic terms, it is. So again, we're at this trade off. You can't resell our bullet, but the firing of the bullet is merely a technique towards a goal, a tool for generating a return on the investment. Has the value lost in the war effort been replaced by the positive value of basically owning Iraq?

Sounds logical to me. But that rationale could be applied to all military ventures, as they don't generate positive value. Unless you count the resource acquisition and economic control that comes with winning a war as a positive value.


There hasn't been an aggressive war that wasn't about territory control and resource acquisition yet. Iraq's no different.


I'm thinking that in economic terms, it is. So again, we're at this trade off. You can't resell our bullet, but the firing of the bullet is merely a technique towards a goal, a tool for generating a return on the investment. Has the value lost in the war effort been replaced by the positive value of basically owning Iraq?

Think of war as an investment in an ultimately unstable market. The returns on investment are shaky, but depending on various factors, can be very lucrative.

As for owning Iraq, the value can be seen in terms of an established strongpoint directly under your control from which you can threaten/coerce neighboring countries, control of oil deposits for future use (noodniks will tell you its not because they don't get cheap oil, but they're noodniks without a clue of macroeconomics), and... hmm, rapidly increasing the growth of several certain industries, although in exchange for devaluation of money.

Economically though, the returns on investment are very low, and have yet to yield positive future forecasts, meaning that barring a miracle, the venture has been a net loss nationally.

Of course, war's only winner, the arms merchants, remain unaffected, seeing as how their business hinges directly on conflict.

Given the increasingly fragile state of the US economy can it afford to continue the Iraq war? I have seen a figure (from the Democrats so obviously to be taken with a pinch of salt) of it costing $195 million a day. Given the credit crunch, house foreclosures, increasing fuel costs is the additional cost of the war going to have a similar effect as the cold war on the Russian economy? If not for how much longer is that level of expenditure sustainable?

Trust me; the people the Administration want to make money are making plenty. :p

Economically? Maybe.
Politically? No way.

So maybe we should be discussing what would happen to the US economy if the US government didn't go to war?

they could have spend the money on something useful, good healthcare and education for instance, or have invested it in research for renewable energy sources or something else which had a positive effect on most people involved (unlike a war). Or they could have lowered taxes, which, if I can trust certain politicians, is also good for the economy.

About the whole war boosting the economy:

It's true that when the bullet is fired, it's consumed and its worth is thus used up. However, a soldier was paid to fire the bullet. A worker was paid to build the bullet. The resources to make it come from some other person.

So, given the economy of the US (one that can over-produce goods and likes to do so), this is a means by which you reduce unemployment. If those bullets weren't being fired, everyone from supplier to consumer would have to find something else to do. This is the case with a lot of things - fireworks, food, paint, computers, etc...

When people stop consuming them, someone else loses their position as a supplier.

So, while the war isn't helping the economy (as it is increasing inflation), it is reducing unemployment.

Given the increasingly fragile state of the US economy can it afford to continue the Iraq war? I have seen a figure (from the Democrats so obviously to be taken with a pinch of salt) of it costing $195 million a day. Given the credit crunch, house foreclosures, increasing fuel costs is the additional cost of the war going to have a similar effect as the cold war on the Russian economy? If not for how much longer is that level of expenditure sustainable?

No, we cannot, and it has nothing to do with dollars and cents. It has everything to do with the military and the state of its men and women.

Simple fact is, our military is strained to the breaking point. We've been using it far beyond its capacity and we just don't have the numbers anymore. In fact, we'd find it a little hard to fight off, say, Russia or China right now if they attacked us. (They wouldn't, but that's not the point.)

Within a year, we will have to pull out of Iraq. Not have to from a moral standpoint, but have to period or else we will entirely break our military.

Here's a question: can the war afford the US?

I say we start saving money for the war by privatizing the Fire Departments. Then we can move on to the Police when we need more dough.

Here's a question: can the war afford the US?

Somewhere, a fallen tree hears the sound of one hand clapping.

cool graph that somewhat fits the topic. (http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/11/14/1482/)

*nod* "cool" = "funny" + "tragic"

I have a question.

Where is all the money going?

If it is costing about 200 million dollars a day, what is that money being spent on?

A lot of it must go to paying soldiers, which is then reintroduced into the US economy when it is spent on food, bills and the other things that people need.

The same could be said for payouts to Halliburton and other US corporations. If these coroporations are then using those funds to purchase goods or services in the US economy, that would boost the economy too.

I may not know a lot about economics, but I know that when people are spending money, it infuses the overall economy with money, and this is good.

So maybe we should be discussing what would happen to the US economy if the US government didn't go to war?

Well, there's the Reagan option. Pick a program with a whizzo name and throw lots of money at it.

I suppose something like that has been mooted ... a Mars mission. For some reason, GWB didn't fire up a lot of enthusiasm as a rocket-scientist.

Is it Richardson who first called for "an Apollo program for energy" ? He seems to really mean it, whereas President-to-be Clinton ... I wish I could believe it.

Within a year, we will have to pull out of Iraq. Not have to from a moral standpoint, but have to period or else we will entirely break our military.

Perhaps breaking is what it needs.

Certainly that's what I feel inclined to do when I've paid top dollar for something that turns out to be crap. :p

No, we can't.

No, we can't.

simple and direct, I like that. Oh, and notch one up for "what he said" please.

I have a question.

Where is all the money going?

If it is costing about 200 million dollars a day, what is that money being spent on?

A lot of it must go to paying soldiers, which is then reintroduced into the US economy when it is spent on food, bills and the other things that people need.

The same could be said for payouts to Halliburton and other US corporations. If these coroporations are then using those funds to purchase goods or services in the US economy, that would boost the economy too.

I may not know a lot about economics, but I know that when people are spending money, it infuses the overall economy with money, and this is good.

So maybe we should be discussing what would happen to the US economy if the US government didn't go to war?

/hears the sound of a million Internet conspiracy theorists -- almost consumed by fears of the military-industrial complex -- slavering and preparing to pounce in reply.

**Ears perk up, starts drooling**
What if those companies aren't really owned by US interests..then all the money goes into another country and is use as trade collateral against a weakening economy here. Its seems silly nowadays to expect that "american" companies are all american- see the gov't is to be policing that but there are caves to search and trade deals to fast track and border guards to jail. :eek:

Perhaps breaking is what it needs.

Certainly that's what I feel inclined to do when I've paid top dollar for something that turns out to be crap. :p

It's not crap. The military did exactly what it was trained to do: it defeated Hussein's army quickly and easily, and took over.

What it was not trained to do was restore order and fix up the place, which is what it SHOULD HAVE been trained to do. You can't fault the military for being put into a bad position. You can, however, fault the people who didn't foresee that problem.

If goods won't cross borders, troops will.

Perhaps breaking is what it needs.

Certainly that's what I feel inclined to do when I've paid top dollar for something that turns out to be crap. :p

well yeah i guess that would be annoying, maybe if they had a defeat then they would stay at home and defend.. the pre-emptive strikes cost way too much money which be be well spent elsewhere.

most of you are right you dont know anything about economics, america has bee very successful lately because it invests so much in R&D when you plug all that money into iraq then its not going to R&D and thats why america has been falling behind other countries economically

If goods won't cross borders, troops will.

Expand on that. It sounds a bit "East India Company" ?

EDIT: I timewarped myself??

It's not crap. The military did exactly what it was trained to do: it defeated Hussein's army quickly and easily, and took over.

To extend my analogy: I pay top dollar (and the US military costs 'top dollar' by any definition) for the most fantastic cell phone which does everything imaginable in a cell phone. I'm pretty happy with the movies it shoots and yeah, it does what any other cell phone does, makes calls.

But I paid top dollar, and even after a while in the repair center it still doesn't get emails and the GPS keeps saying I'm in Afghanistan.

Maybe I don't smash the thing (it's still useful for its primary role after all -- defeating other field armies) but I sure as hell don't go buy next year's model from the same company.

What it was not trained to do was restore order and fix up the place, which is what it SHOULD HAVE been trained to do. You can't fault the military for being put into a bad position. You can, however, fault the people who didn't foresee that problem.

"Military spending" includes everything from the executive down. If they didn't forsee that after invading a country, they might need to maintain law and order ... then hell yeah, you fault the military you paid for.

Those "people" were paid out of military spending. They are a part of "the military." Why wouldn't you "fault" them?

Yes, it can afford it. However, it will come at the cost of shaving off several basis points of economic growth.

To extend my analogy: I pay top dollar (and the US military costs 'top dollar' by any definition) for the most fantastic cell phone which does everything imaginable in a cell phone. I'm pretty happy with the movies it shoots and yeah, it does what any other cell phone does, makes calls.

But I paid top dollar, and even after a while in the repair center it still doesn't get emails and the GPS keeps saying I'm in Afghanistan.

Maybe I don't smash the thing (it's still useful for its primary role after all -- defeating other field armies) but I sure as hell don't go buy next year's model from the same company.



"Military spending" includes everything from the executive down. If they didn't forsee that after invading a country, they might need to maintain law and order ... then hell yeah, you fault the military you paid for.

Those "people" were paid out of military spending. They are a part of "the military." Why wouldn't you "fault" them?
I think it's a bit of a difference of what exactly we're talking about. I'm talking about not faulting the average soldier who is just doing what he or she is ordered to do. Fault the leadership, yes, but not the entire organization.

I think it's a bit of a difference of what exactly we're talking about. I'm talking about not faulting the average soldier who is just doing what he or she is ordered to do. Fault the leadership, yes, but not the entire organization.

Fault the entire organization. The US taxpayer did their dough.

Fault the entire organization. The US taxpayer did their dough.

So every single person is responsible for the inability of the leadership to plan out what they needed to do after the invasion? The average soldier just following orders somehow shares responsibility with Dick Cheney? Please...

I think it's a bit of a difference of what exactly we're talking about. I'm talking about not faulting the average soldier who is just doing what he or she is ordered to do. Fault the leadership, yes, but not the entire organization.Folks who blindly follow orders are faulty. Folks who join the military and out of free will make themselves someone else's puppets are faulty.

So every single person is responsible for the inability of the leadership to plan out what they needed to do after the invasion? The average soldier just following orders somehow shares responsibility with Dick Cheney? Please...Well, once you allow your dear leadership to wage war you're all in it.

Folks who blindly follow orders are faulty. Folks who join the military and out of free will make themselves someone else's puppets are faulty.

Yes, thank you for insulting me. I'm just a puppet! :rolleyes:

(For the record, I would most certainly not blindly follow orders. If I was ordered to do something obviously illegal, I'd refuse to follow that order. The oath one takes is to upload lawful orders, after all, not all orders. Blind order following is silly.)

Well, once you allow your dear leadership to wage war you're all in it.
Dear Leader? Pah. Nothing of the sort. There have been serious mistakes made.

My problem is with assigning blame to people who ARE NOT CAPABLE OF CHANGING POLICY. They are doing the job they signed up to do: following orders. Why blame them? They can't do anything different. The military doesn't work that way.

So every single person is responsible for the inability of the leadership to plan out what they needed to do after the invasion? The average soldier just following orders somehow shares responsibility with Dick Cheney? Please...

Please what? You want personal career advice from a self-confessed deadbeat?

The average soldier, just following orders, of course has to delegate most of their responsibility for the outcomes to their commanding officer, who delegates upwards.

Approaching it from the other side, the commander in chief delegates responsibility downwards, for the implementation of strategic objectives. Eg. the "two major engagements" policy.

I can't say "the US military was bad at peacekeeping because the soldiers are panty-waists" ... but nor can you say "the commander in chief should have known that the chiefs of staff were bullshitting him about the capabilities of the military."

Isn't it just simpler to say: "as an investment of taxpayers money, the US military is a ripoff" ... that if you pay for the whole package (CIA, strategic aid, arming insurgents, corporate involvement, strategic weapons, weapons systems, training, service personel) and the whole package can't deliver an obvious purpose like policing a country the commander-in-chief explicitly invaded ... then you've done your dough? That there was something wrong with the idea you set out to achieve?

The US military (any military perhaps) is sold to the US people as a defense force, a thing to keep them safe. Using it as an empire-building force, a thing to make them rich and powerful, is a fundamental mistake.

But I say, for the money the taxpayer forked out (and it's prodigous, it's enough to feed and house the entire world), they had a right to a product flexible enough to do that if necessary. They deserved everything a military could be expected to do.

To my mind, the entire system became corrupted by cold war. The prospect of total annihilation led all levels of the military into a mindset of "all or nothing." Of "casualties are unacceptable" and of "war must be profitable, because war is inevitable."

I think with your "we might break the military" idea you are succumbing to that mindset.

The US, or any other country, needs only enough defense to make attacks on them impractical. Not impossible. "No country should be able to gain from war" -- if all countries kept themselves to this principle there would be no wars.

Please what? You want personal career advice from a self-confessed deadbeat?

The average soldier, just following orders, of course has to delegate most of their responsibility for the outcomes to their commanding officer, who delegates upwards.

Approaching it from the other side, the commander in chief delegates responsibility downwards, for the implementation of strategic objectives. Eg. the "two major engagements" policy.

I can't say "the US military was bad at peacekeeping because the soldiers are panty-waists" ... but nor can you say "the commander in chief should have known that the chiefs of staff were bullshitting him about the capabilities of the military."

Isn't it just simpler to say: "as an investment of taxpayers money, the US military is a ripoff" ... that if you pay for the whole package (CIA, strategic aid, arming insurgents, corporate involvement, strategic weapons, weapons systems, training, service personel) and the whole package can't deliver an obvious purpose like policing a country the commander-in-chief explicitly invaded ... then you've done your dough? That there was something wrong with the idea you set out to achieve?

The US military (any military perhaps) is sold to the US people as a defense force, a thing to keep them safe. Using it as an empire-building force, a thing to make them rich and powerful, is a fundamental mistake.

But I say, for the money the taxpayer forked out (and it's prodigous, it's enough to feed and house the entire world), they had a right to a product flexible enough to do that if necessary. They deserved everything a military could be expected to do.

To my mind, the entire system became corrupted by cold war. The prospect of total annihilation led all levels of the military into a mindset of "all or nothing." Of "casualties are unacceptable" and of "war must be profitable, because war is inevitable."

I think with your "we might break the military" idea you are succumbing to that mindset.

The US, or any other country, needs only enough defense to make attacks on them impractical. Not impossible. "No country should be able to gain from war" -- if all countries kept themselves to this principle there would be no wars.
All fair enough. I don't disagree with you. All I was objecting to was the idea that the average soldier is entirely complicit.

All fair enough. I don't disagree with you. All I was objecting to was the idea that the average soldier is entirely complicit.

By following orders, the average* soldier IS complicit.

I think this is a huge part of why we "honour" soldiers. Some of us honour soldiers for killing (well, I do -- killing someone you don't personally hate is a big ask), most of us honour them for risking their lives.

But essentially, we honour soldiers for doing their duty. For following orders, which ultimately are OUR orders.

I honour plumbers much the same way. They do what I want done, but am too squeamish to do myself.

*The word "average" could simply be left out. Average on what scale? "ordinary" "typical" or "generic" had the same qualifying sense (not in all cases) but are now pejorative, since they weaken the meaning. "Average" is a hedging word.

To be completely honest I couldn't care if the war hurts America economically, I feel sorry for the Iraqis the most.

WWRPS?
''What Would Ron Paul Say?''

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
September 4, 2002

Arguments Against a War in Iraq

Mr. Speaker;

I rise to urge the Congress to think twice before thrusting this nation into a war without merit- one fraught with the danger of escalating into something no American will be pleased with.

Thomas Jefferson once said: "Never was so much false arithmetic employed on any subject as that which has been employed to persuade nations that it is in their interests to go to war."

We have for months now heard plenty of false arithmetic and lame excuses for why we must pursue a preemptive war of aggression against an impoverished third world nation 6000 miles from our shores that doesn’t even possess a navy or air force, on the pretense that it must be done for national security reasons.

For some reason such an attack makes me feel much less secure, while our country is made more vulnerable.

Congress must consider the fact that those with military experience advocate a "go slow" policy, while those without military experience are the ones demanding this war.

We cannot ignore the fact that all of Iraq’s neighbors oppose this attack, and our European allies object as well.

If the military and diplomatic reasons for a policy of restraint make no sense to those who want a war, I advise they consider the $100 billion cost that will surely compound our serious budget and economic problems we face here at home. We need no more false arithmetic on our budget or false reasons for pursuing this new adventure into preemptive war and worldwide nation-building.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to offer another quote from Jefferson. Jefferson said: "No country perhaps was ever so thoroughly against war as ours. These dispositions pervade every description of its citizens, whether in or out of office. We love and we value peace, we know its blessings from experience."

We need this sentiment renewed in this Congress in order to avoid a needless war that offers us nothing but trouble. Congress must deal with this serious matter of whether or not we go to war. I believe it would be a mistake with the information that is available to us today. I do not see any reason whatsoever to take young men and young women and send them 6,000 miles to attack a country that has not committed any aggression against this country. Many American now share my belief that it would be a serious mistake.

First, there is a practical reason to oppose a war in Iraq. Our military now has been weakened over the last decade, and when we go into Iraq we will clearly dilute our ability to defend our country. We do not enhance our national defense by initiating this war. Besides, it is impractical because of unintended consequences which none of us know about. We do not know exactly how long this will last. It could be a six-day war, a six-month war, or six years or even longer.

There is a military reason for not going to war. We ought to listen to the generals and other military experts, including Colin Powell, Brent Scowcroft, Anthony Zinni, and Norman Schwarzkopf, who are now advising us NOT to go to war. Some have even cautioned against the possibility of starting World War III. They understand that our troops have been spread too thin around the world, and it is dangerous from a purely military standpoint to go to war today.

There is a constitutional argument and a constitutional mistake that could be made. If we once again go to war, as we have done on so many occasions since World War II, without a clear declaration of war by Congress, we blatantly violate the Constitution. I fear we will once again go to war in a haphazard way, by executive order, or even by begging permission from the rotten, anti-American United Nations. This haphazard approach, combined with a lack of clearly defined goal for victory, makes it almost inevitable that true victory will not come. So we should look at this from a constitutional perspective. Congress should assume its responsibility, because war is declared by Congress, not by a President and not by a U.N.

This is a very important matter, and I am delighted to hear that there will be congressional hearings and discussion. I certainly believe we should have a balanced approach. We have already had some hearings in the other body, where we heard only one side of the issue. If we want to have real hearings, we should have a debate and hear evidence on both sides, rather than just hearing pro-war interests arguing for war.

There are even good political reasons for not initiating this conflict. War is not popular. It may seem popular in the short run, when there appears to be an immediate victory and everyone is gloating, but war is not popular. People get killed, and body bags end up coming back. War is very unpopular, and it is not the politically smart thing to do.

There are economic reasons to avoid this war. We can do serious damage to our economy. It is estimated that this venture into Iraq may well cost over a hundred billion dollars. Our national debt right now is increasing at a rate of over $450 billion yearly, and we are talking about spending another hundred billion dollars on an adventure when we do not know what the outcome will be and how long it will last? What will happen to oil prices? What will happen to the recession that we are in? What will happen to the deficit? We must expect all kinds of economic ramifications.

There are countless diplomatic reasons for not going. All the Arab nations near Iraq object to and do not endorse our plans, and none of our European allies are anxious for this to happen. So diplomatically we make a serious mistake by doing this. I hope we have second thoughts and are very cautious in what we do.

There are philosophical reasons for those who believe in limited government to oppose this war. "War is the health of the state," as the saying goes. War necessarily means more power is given to the state. This additional power always results in a loss of liberty. Many of the worst government programs of the 20th century began during wartime "emergencies" and were never abolished. War and big government go hand in hand, but we should be striving for peace and freedom.

Finally, there is a compelling moral argument against war in Iraq. Military force is justified only in self-defense; naked aggression is the province of dictators and rogue states. This is the danger of a new "preemptive first strike" doctrine. America is the most moral nation on earth, founded on moral principles, and we must apply moral principles when deciding to use military force.

VOTE RON PAUL 2008!!

It's not crap. The military did exactly what it was trained to do: it defeated Hussein's army quickly and easily, and took over.

What it was not trained to do was restore order and fix up the place, which is what it SHOULD HAVE been trained to do. You can't fault the military for being put into a bad position. You can, however, fault the people who didn't foresee that problem.

If a doctor is told to operate something inoperable, he essentially has two choices:

Find out how it's done.

Tell people that it can't be done.

Same thing with an engineer: If they know they can't do what is being asked of them, they either find a solution or inform their employer that there won't be any results.

Similarly, a soldier should be expected to inform the leadership when too much is being asked of them. Some have indeed done this. Many have not. Now, if every soldier had gotten together and demanded to be given the specific training necessary to do their job, maybe they would be able to do it. Cause it is possible, there is no doubt about that.

You can fault the leadership for demanding too much, but you can also fault the grunt for not demanding enough.

Yes, thank you for insulting me. I'm just a puppet! :rolleyes:

(For the record, I would most certainly not blindly follow orders. If I was ordered to do something obviously illegal, I'd refuse to follow that order. The oath one takes is to upload lawful orders, after all, not all orders. Blind order following is silly.)Following orders is silly in general.

Dear Leader? Pah. Nothing of the sort. There have been serious mistakes made.

My problem is with assigning blame to people who ARE NOT CAPABLE OF CHANGING POLICY. They are doing the job they signed up to do: following orders. Why blame them? They can't do anything different. The military doesn't work that way.Why does one sign up for a military job then? It means making oneself a tool in the hands of those who are in command. I see joining the military if one doesn't have to a flaw of character.

*snip*

VOTE RON PAUL 2008!!

Fuck off spammer.
You are off-topic.
You are making it harder for legitimate users who respect this forum to get their first posts heard.
You are discrediting your candidate.

You are shitting right in the mouth of freedom of speech.

So fuck off.

I'd say yes, actually, because if we don't, the Iraqis end up footing the bill for us breaking their country.

they should or else... *:sniper:*

By following orders, the average* soldier IS complicit.

I think this is a huge part of why we "honour" soldiers. Some of us honour soldiers for killing (well, I do -- killing someone you don't personally hate is a big ask), most of us honour them for risking their lives.

But essentially, we honour soldiers for doing their duty. For following orders, which ultimately are OUR orders.

I honour plumbers much the same way. They do what I want done, but am too squeamish to do myself.

*The word "average" could simply be left out. Average on what scale? "ordinary" "typical" or "generic" had the same qualifying sense (not in all cases) but are now pejorative, since they weaken the meaning. "Average" is a hedging word.

(I did mean typical, generic, what have you. I'm simply using average out of force of habit. Sorry.)

You have to understand the command structure of the military. It's a very rigid hiearchael structure. It's not like Private Johnson here could tell Colonel Sanders that policy is wrong and that they need to do it differently. He'd get yelled at and probably officially reprimanded if he tried. I am almost certain that there are plenty of soldiers, sailors, and marines that do not agree with the policies they are being ordered to enforce, but they DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE. Once you sign up for the military, you sign up for the whole kit and kaboodle for your service time and you don't have a say otherwise in determining your orders. It's something people who don't have much familiarity with the military don't understand.

That's why they can't be complicit, at least not being directly responsible in the same way. Now, if we were talking civilian contractors or what have you that aren't required to follow orders and not speak their minds, I'd be whole-heartedly agreeing with you. As it is, I can't.

On that same token I highly disagree with this veneration of the military we've got going on. It's a little ridiculous. Yes, the military does plenty of fighting for our rights and we should be happy for that. It's also been used many times--such as for Iraq--in ways that simply serve the agenda of whoever is POTUS and as a result we should not be so proud of the organization as a whole.

On THAT same token we shouldn't dismiss or despise soldiers, sailors, and marines either. We should treat them with the same respect we accord everyone else, not elevate them on a platform or lower them into a pit.
If a doctor is told to operate something inoperable, he essentially has two choices:

Find out how it's done.

Tell people that it can't be done.

Same thing with an engineer: If they know they can't do what is being asked of them, they either find a solution or inform their employer that there won't be any results.

I agree here, but please see above for why this isn't an appropriate analogy.

Similarly, a soldier should be expected to inform the leadership when too much is being asked of them. Some have indeed done this. Many have not. Now, if every soldier had gotten together and demanded to be given the specific training necessary to do their job, maybe they would be able to do it. Cause it is possible, there is no doubt about that.

You can fault the leadership for demanding too much, but you can also fault the grunt for not demanding enough.

Once again, I'd agree if they really had a choice in the matter, but they don't. Sure, some commanding officers might be willing to listen to what a few of their "grunts" have to say, but then they'd have to pass those recommendations to their superiors, and to THEIR superiors, and so on and so forth. Just like the typical sailor, soldier, or marine cannot change policy, so too are the officers bound by their orders. It's just not easy to change things up within a structure like that.
Following orders is silly in general.

Depends on how you look at it. If we were in a burning building and I gave you an order to vacate the premises immediately in the safest way possible(describing that way to you) would you follow that order?

Not trying to be a smartass, mind. I'm simply saying that your statement is far too broad a paintbrush. Sure, there are plenty of orders that are silly and situations that are silly, but there are plenty of orders and situations that are the opposite.

Why does one sign up for a military job then? It means making oneself a tool in the hands of those who are in command. I see joining the military if one doesn't have to a flaw of character.
There are plenty of reasons beyond the order-taking, UB. For example, I am joining the Navy for the educational benefits, experiences(traveling around the world? As part of my JOB?! YES PLEASE!) and so on and so forth that I will receive. There are parts of it I'm not happy with. I won't like having to shut my mouth and be quiet all the time. I won't like the idea of even contemplating killing a person(and I hope to avoid such a situation as much as I can) and I won't like the restrictions upon my freedom of activities. If I had other options I'd gladly go for them instead, but I don't.

But there are plenty of other reasons one might wish to join. During a time of war one might feel a sense of duty to "serve one's country." Then there are the people who join because they want to kills others...those people are sick-minded in my opinion. I'm sure there are other reasons that other military people on here can share with you.

Now, of course, I don't expect this to change your opinion one bit. I'm saying it, however, in case you do actually listen.

*checks pockets*
Nope.