You guys ready for Obama for 4 more years?

[Godfather]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...75S25320110629

Looking at the Brown study itself, honestly, the macroeconomic effects of the Wars are staggering. Obviously it's impossible to know what the US economy would look like having never gone to war, but the full effects of the war's reduced capital investment won't even hit for another 10 years economists say!! And it has already increased spending by a measurable mark of the GDP, meaning interest is going to bite too long-term.

And there are still a dozen other factors to look at as a result of the war, like what all those veterans will cost/not earn (500,000+ disability claims filed).

Yes these countries were two of the most repressed in the world, but they still come in far down on the Democracy index. They're flawed as hell still. Honestly I'm not trying to be critical of America, defend Obama or stir the pot... just thinking out-loud about the extent to which the war cost too much (gained little) and factor's in to Obama's economy. *shrug*

[JoeyB]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...75S25320110629

Looking at the Brown study itself, honestly, the macroeconomic effects of the Wars are staggering. Obviously it's impossible to know what the US economy would look like having never gone to war, but the full effects of the war's reduced capital investment won't even hit for another 10 years economists say!! And it has already increased spending by a measurable mark of the GDP, meaning interest is going to bite too long-term.

And there are still a dozen other factors to look at as a result of the war, like what all those veterans will cost/not earn (500,000+ disability claims filed).

Yes these countries were two of the most repressed in the world, but they still come in far down on the Democracy index. They're flawed as hell still. Honestly I'm not trying to be critical of America, defend Obama or stir the pot... just thinking out-loud about the extent to which the war cost too much (gained little) and factor's in to Obama's economy. *shrug*

Listen, if we took half the money we spent on war, we could fix every problem in the country, period. And you know, not have fought a useless war that lead to hundreds of thousands of dead people. But hey.

[Godfather]

Listen, if we took half the money we spent on war, we could fix every problem in the country, period. And you know, not have fought a useless war that lead to hundreds of thousands of dead people. But hey.

Reminds me of that (asshole) Sean Penn's ad with the money being rolled out on the floor showing the War, Wall-Street Bail Out, and how much it would cost to feed every kid in America Little dramatic and I can't say I've checked the numbers, but it makes a point...

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Brown University did the most recent large scale report. They estimated the two wars at something like $3.7 trillion and tore into the DoD for claiming it was less than a trillion.

Because Brown University is such a bastion of impartiality in this world of hyper-partisan bullshit?

[Godfather]

Because Brown University is such a bastion of impartiality in this world of hyper-partisan bullshit?

So take the mean, average and median of the two figures into consideration

[Iffy]

never seen a black Scotsman tbh....

The kilts aren't long enough

[Hal-9000]

The kilts aren't long enough

That's all you got outta this whole thread?

[Iffy]

That's all you got outta this whole thread?

I go where the penis jokes take me.

I was going to twist the Woodrow Wilson reference but it seemed too obvious

[JoeyB]

I go where the penis jokes take me.

I was going to twist the Woodrow Wilson reference but it seemed too obvious

Are we doing penis jokes now? Or did you just cockup the thread a bit?

[FBD]

As a bystander: Is the war in Iraq something Republicans are cool with Bush getting into, or something this debate ignores because it's a tough question?

Because at over $3 trillion in costs I'm not sure how it isn't mentioned...

I think this debate largely ignores that. You'd have to take into consideration the UN, all of its resolutions against saddam, its complete lack of ability to act because of its defunct nature and structure...that's amongst the reasons why you cant spell eunuch without U.N.

Basically if the UN were even remotely impartial, Saddam would have been dealt with before we had to gather together the countries with common sense. The world was done a huge disservice by all of this, because the controversy engendered by "unilateral" action was really just an easy ticket for Iran to flex its muscles - and if you think about it, Iran was the bunch that needed the most containment - which would have happened if the parties of the UN acted in the world's self interest instead of each their own, on its own. Or, acting simply "against the US's interests," as the security council case may be in Russia and China. That unilateral veto thing is a bugger, it has had a big hand in making the UN mostly ineffective. (Vast bloat aside...)

That said, at least all of that Iraq money was spent for something - Obama's stimuli and policies have had a very significant fraction of the cost not to mention far more of a wet blanket on the country than the Iraq war.