Follow us on...
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook Watch us on YouTube
Register
Page 1 of 6 1234 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 87
  1. #1
    Sinner's Swing! el_jalepeno's Avatar
    Join Date
    08.26.02
    Location
    TEXAS
    Posts
    3,266
    Favorite VH Album

    Van Halen
    Favorite VH Song

    Hot for Teacher
    Last Online

    10.28.15 @ 05:22 PM
    Likes
    8
    Liked 6 Times in 5 Posts


    Donor

    I was in a Strategic Management class this past weekend, and we were discussing what a war with Iraqi would cost. Monetary value only, for a three week war in Iraq would cost about $500. This takes into consideration historical relevance and how the economies are boosted... This is the cost for each American. I was thinking it would be more like $15,000 for each of us. again, this isn;'t taking into account loss of life or long-term syndroms and the sort. What do you think it would cost, monetarily speaking?

  2. #2
    Unchained
    Join Date
    03.05.00
    Location
    Columbus, OH USA
    Posts
    517
    Last Online

    12.31.69 @ 04:00 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 1 Time in 1 Post

    good question. but are they going by gulf war I? because if bush is serious about taking bagdad, things are going to be a lot messier and slower than 3 weeks, i think. trying to take a city is completely different than wiping out the iraqi guard in the (relative) wide open. i'm no economist (and i don't play one on TV) but i'd think it'll be a hell of a lot closer to 15,000 than 500. too many hawks with rose colored glasses in that white house.

  3. #3
    Hot For Teacher
    Join Date
    11.14.02
    Age
    55
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    306
    Favorite VH Album

    1984, 5150
    Favorite VH Song

    Jamie\'s cryin\', Dreams, Right now
    Last Online

    02.27.07 @ 04:58 AM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Dare I dip my liberal pinko ass in yet another political forum? LOL
    I think the administration is doing a very good job of uniting people at the moment, from what I see of demonstrations in the US and around the world on TV.........against an attack on Iraq, that is.
    And lets be sure to call it an attack, cos it ain't a war. Iraq is no threat to the US military.
    It is already costing billions of dollars every day.......

  4. #4
    Sinner's Swing! el_jalepeno's Avatar
    Join Date
    08.26.02
    Location
    TEXAS
    Posts
    3,266
    Favorite VH Album

    Van Halen
    Favorite VH Song

    Hot for Teacher
    Last Online

    10.28.15 @ 05:22 PM
    Likes
    8
    Liked 6 Times in 5 Posts


    Donor

    Originally posted by kenny5150:
    Dare I dip my liberal pinko ass in yet another political forum? LOL
    I think the administration is doing a very good job of uniting people at the moment, from what I see of demonstrations in the US and around the world on TV.........against an attack on Iraq, that is.
    And lets be sure to call it an attack, cos it ain't a war. Iraq is no threat to the US military.
    It is already costing billions of dollars every day.......
    I see your persepective, and somewhat agree. At least that we are continuing toi push against Iraq when n one else seems they are a threat.

  5. #5
    Hot For Teacher
    Join Date
    11.14.02
    Age
    55
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    306
    Favorite VH Album

    1984, 5150
    Favorite VH Song

    Jamie\'s cryin\', Dreams, Right now
    Last Online

    02.27.07 @ 04:58 AM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Oh there is no doubt Hussein is a fucking nutjob, and the Iraqi people would be better off without him (perhaps not initially)....but in terms of a threat to the World with "WMD"??
    That is just not true. All the things Bush is accusing Iraq of, everyone knows is true about N.Korea. But the whole reason Bush cant (or wont) play schoolyard bully with Kim Jong Il is that he has the Taepo Dong 1 missiles, with a range of 6000km, and a nuclear, chemical, and biological program......and he is a fruit loop as well - and very dangerous.
    If Bush tries to get tough with N.Korea, all of Japan, Sth.Korea, most of Russia and some US interests in the Sth.Pacific could be at risk if Mr.Kim 'snaps'. His military would not be the pushover that Iraq's was, or will be. THAT is why there is a 'diplomatic solution' in hand for the problem of Kim Jong Il......because N.Korea is actually all of the things the US is accusing Iraq of being - and more.

    What ever happened to hunting down the perpertrators of 9/11 anyhow?

  6. #6
    Unchained
    Join Date
    03.05.00
    Location
    Columbus, OH USA
    Posts
    517
    Last Online

    12.31.69 @ 04:00 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 1 Time in 1 Post

    well stated kenny. unfortunately, the 9/11 guys are all saudi, and bush is very tight with the saudis. he'd much rather bomb saddam's ass.

    bush made a big mistake by linking iraq and n. korea. now the n. koreans have made him look stupid -- well, even more stupid

  7. #7
    Hot For Teacher
    Join Date
    11.14.02
    Age
    55
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    306
    Favorite VH Album

    1984, 5150
    Favorite VH Song

    Jamie\'s cryin\', Dreams, Right now
    Last Online

    02.27.07 @ 04:58 AM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Something to chew on (if ya haven't already)

    http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapc...sor/index.html

  8. #8
    Banned!
    Join Date
    03.21.00
    Location
    Albany, NY
    Posts
    1,884
    Favorite VH Album

    BALANCE
    Favorite VH Song

    AFTERSHOCK
    Last Online

    03.20.07 @ 12:01 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Originally posted by Ikeda:
    well stated kenny. unfortunately, the 9/11 guys are all saudi, and bush is very tight with the saudis. he'd much rather bomb saddam's ass.

    bush made a big mistake by linking iraq and n. korea. now the n. koreans have made him look stupid -- well, even more stupid
    On the contrary, US and Saudi relations are at an extreme lowpoint, lowest ever in fact. The people there hate our military presence. The only thing keeping us there is the large sums of money we pump into the Saudi royal families. Even that doesn't seem enough for the Sauds to turn a blind eye in their disagreement of our policies. I wouldn't be surprised, that once the US secures the Iraqi oil reserves, they turn on the Sauds.

    We won't see this end anytime soon. The militaristic nature or the US government needs the spectre of an enemy, real or not, to scare us with, in turn justifying military spending. The same thing was true in the Cold War. Without the illusion of the 'Soviet threat', there would have been no justification for military buildup and spending of taxpayer money. The only threat communism had was to capitalist business profits.

    In the same vein, Iraq poses a negligent threat to the United States, other than in economic profit from oil. North Korea on the other hand, is a more interesting scenario. As was stated, Bush made a huge mistake in calling out N. Korea, thus putting them on high military alert. Of course, it could have been a calculated move, to ease the public into once again hating and fearing Korea. Of course, the only thing the Koreans really care about is reunification. Jong is a ruthless dictator, yes, a bad man, yes. But, the US has supported dictators past and present, some of the worst. The threat of being pushed out of the Korean peninsula is the real problem of course. The only military threat N. Korea poses to us is one of self defense. i.e., if they are provoked by the US once again.

    It will be interesting to see what kind of lies Rumsfeld and Cheney will have Bush feed us, into thinking N. Korea is a threat to us. At least they can fool people into linking Saddam with Al Qaeda because of their skin color and geographic location, but this will be more difficult. Maybe a band of ninjas will attack Hollywood. Then we can link all Asians as terrorists, giving reason for a preemptive strike against N. Korea. Oh, the possibilities!!

  9. #9
    carpe damn diem billy007's Avatar
    Join Date
    04.19.00
    Age
    54
    Location
    On the wild card line...
    Posts
    28,682
    Favorite VH Song

    "Dance The Night Away"
    Last Online

    12.15.17 @ 05:35 PM
    Likes
    1,046
    Liked 1,350 Times in 926 Posts

    Look, I don't know if war with Iraq is the right thing or not, but damn, some of you guys, American citizens even, make it sound like all we ever do is go around picking on poor, innocent, helpless little nations looking for a fight. I guess you'd rather hate your own government and love these other governments that are out there that are raping and torturing their own citizens.
    Bottom line is, we are one of the few nations that is capable of taking on the world's baddies - is it our duty to help the citizens of those countries remove an oppressive dictatorship or should we just sit on the sidelines and look the other way?
    Sure we may look out for our own self interests from time to time, but we're not all that bad...

  10. #10
    Banned!
    Join Date
    03.21.00
    Location
    Albany, NY
    Posts
    1,884
    Favorite VH Album

    BALANCE
    Favorite VH Song

    AFTERSHOCK
    Last Online

    03.20.07 @ 12:01 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Originally posted by billy007:
    Look, I don't know if war with Iraq is the right thing or not, but damn, some of you guys, American citizens even, make it sound like all we ever do is go around picking on poor, innocent, helpless little nations looking for a fight. I guess you'd rather hate your own government and love these other governments that are out there that are raping and torturing their own citizens.
    Bottom line is, we are one of the few nations that is capable of taking on the world's baddies - is it our duty to help the citizens of those countries remove an oppressive dictatorship or should we just sit on the sidelines and look the other way?
    Sure we may look out for our own self interests from time to time, but we're not all that bad...
    Look, I don't go around defending dictators and 'baddies' as you say. I just can't stand the fact that people are lied into thinking their government is out to do the 'right' thing. I can't stand the fear tactics that are used to scare people in one direction or another, to mask the truth and to divert attention away from the 'real' issues. I'm sick of all of this choosing sides, 'you're with us or against us' nonsense and drivel. It's pure propaganda. I'm a member of the human and world community, first and foremost. Latching on to some patriotic, idealogical nationalistic nonsense means jack squat to me, and means even less when it is used to further some rich politicians who are willing to destroy the envioronment we all live in and slaughter innocent people for their own gain.

    Sorry, that's just me.

    The US doesn't just look out for their own self interests from 'time to time'...it is all the time. In one way or another, each military, diplomatic action benefits the US in some way, some obvious, some not so. It is important to look below the surface to find these reasons, so we can better understand it. It is just naive to think otherwise. The government tries very hard to suppress your thinkinging and search for the truth. They play themselves up as the worlds well doer, the honest policeman, the protector. They scare us into thinking our enemies are on our doorstep. The real motivations are not that hard to find. And it's a bit more complicated than 'the bully picking on poor nations for a fight'. The US wouldn't be picking on them if they couldn't at least steal their lunch money. And the US wouldn't be picking on them if they weren't poor and somewhat defenseless.

    Your statement: "I guess you'd rather hate your own government and love these other governments that are out there that are raping and torturing their own citizens. " is just plain ridiculous and laughable.

  11. #11
    carpe damn diem billy007's Avatar
    Join Date
    04.19.00
    Age
    54
    Location
    On the wild card line...
    Posts
    28,682
    Favorite VH Song

    "Dance The Night Away"
    Last Online

    12.15.17 @ 05:35 PM
    Likes
    1,046
    Liked 1,350 Times in 926 Posts

    Well, I think it's laughable that you can't understand that the government is there to look out for the interests of the United States, and if you don't think oil is in the interest of the United States, then you better think again. Don't like the fact that we fight over oil? Then perhaps a better form of protest would be parking your car and putting it up on blocks - oh, and don't bother with public transportation either, those vehicles need oil and gasoline. You live up north - don't know what you heat your home with, but if it's oil, better turn that thermostat off. Don't know where you work, but there's probably oil involved there too. Bottom line is, we've allowed ourselves to become dependent on oil, and while it would be nice to be able to wean ourselves off that dependency (and better for our environment), going cold turkey would destroy us faster than Rome. So, yeah, our government needs to do whatever it can to protect those interests, and if they have to take out a ruthless dictator or two along the way, all the better.
    This country has survived now for over 200 years doing things the way they do - and really, things haven't changed all that much when you think about it - and I think we do all right for ourselves. I'd still like to know what you'd have the country, the government do - how should the world run according to strungout?
    We all stay home, let all the smaller countries fight their own battles, only use what we produce - no imports, no exports - live on a big giant commune growing organic food all the while maintaining proper topsoil levels with peace and love and harmony for all? Well, if only the peace and love and harmony for all aspect of it was attainable, that would be a start. But I don't see it happening any time soon. But I really would like to know what it is you want to see happen.

  12. #12
    Watch the hair!!!
    Join Date
    03.23.02
    Location
    Southeastern U.S.
    Posts
    1,673
    Favorite VH Album

    VH/Fair Warning/5150/F.U.C.K.
    Favorite VH Song

    R.Delight/Unchain./5150/C.Wabo
    Last Online

    07.22.09 @ 11:11 AM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Originally posted by el_jalepeno:
    I was in a Strategic Management class this past weekend, and we were discussing what a war with Iraqi would cost. Monetary value only, for a three week war in Iraq would cost about $500. This takes into consideration historical relevance and how the economies are boosted... This is the cost for each American. I was thinking it would be more like $15,000 for each of us. again, this isn;'t taking into account loss of life or long-term syndroms and the sort. What do you think it would cost, monetarily speaking?
    Looking at it in purely financial terms is difficult as I’ve seen many divergent dollar amounts being thrown around. For example, the White House estimates its costs as $60-80 billion, while other economists have estimated it as high as $2.5 trillion, if you count all the necessary nation-building costs after the war. But most of the numbers I’ve seen only calculate what it costs the U.S., without taking into account the benefits that will be yielded for the U.S., Iraq and the rest of the world. A better measurement -- as you undoubtedly know if you’re in a graduate Strategic Management class -- is to conduct a cost-benefit analysis and look at it in terms of return on investment. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to completely and accurately quantify the benefits to our nation (as well as to the Iraqi people and the rest of the world) financially. It’s also difficult to do more than a qualitative analysis of the human benefits that would occur, though, as you wrote, there would likely be significant negative human consequences, too, such as the loss of life and other long-term health costs for everyone involved.

    Let’s not forget that it currently costs the U.S. money to patrol the northern and southern “no-fly” zones in Iraq and to closely monitor a despotic regime like Saddam’s – especially since his regime is a state sponsor of terrorism. In addition, the U.N. sanctions actually hurt the U.S. and world’s economies because of the vast amounts of potential Iraqi oil that are being kept off the world market, as well as all the potential non-oil business for U.S. and other nation’s firms that we’re eschewing to keep Saddam in a box. Ultimately, this is why the best possible solution would be to have Saddam and his cronies simply accept exile and leave. However, the costs to the U.S. and the Iraqi people would still be high to help the nation modernize and grow their economy, as well as to help the nation rebuild (which would also provide a financial benefit to firms all around the world, including U.S. firms, that would be contracted to perform this work). It would certainly have a strong benefit to many other nations around the world, like Russia, France and China, which already have significant investments for certain parcels of Iraqi land where they will be exploring/drilling for oil but have to do so under the existing U.N. Security Council sanctions. Contrary to popular belief, these nation’s oil firms will be the ones reaping the oil exploration revenues, not U.S. firms, which currently are prohibited from investing in the country under U.S. law, while Iraq will reap the benefits of increase crude-oil revenues. Yeah, I know some of the “The war against Iraq is only about oil” crowd figure that after we win the war and the U.N. sanctions are lifted, the Bush Administration will simply rip up all the contracts and give them to U.S. oil firms. But I don’t think that’s going to happen when the three aforementioned countries with significant investments in Iraqi oil fields are all major world powers that sit as permanent members of the UN Security Council.

    Nonetheless, in purely financial terms, there is probably a low or negative ROI over the short term for the U.S. – a rate of return that contradicts the argument that the U.S. is only looking to liberate Iraq for purely financial gain, especially considering the risks involved. The ol’ risk-return relationship doesn’t fair too well in this situation. But the long-term benefits, which are mostly non-financial, would be tremendous. The security of the world, including the U.S. and our allies, would likely be improved, and the potential for democracy among Arab nations in the Middle East would be enhanced, especially in a nation like Iran, which is already leaning towards becoming a full-blown democracy. Ridding the world of one sponsor of terrorism like Saddam would also have long-term financial benefits for the U.S. in the nation’s ability to fight worldwide terrorism. I just hope we can accomplish the liberation of Iraq without military action but if Saddam’s past is any indication, I don’t think it’s possible.
    "Seems the old folks who come up short were the pretty little kids who didn't want it, no." - Van Halen (1979)

    "Our greatest glory is not in never falling but in rising every time we fall." - Confucius

    "The possibility that we may fail in the struggle should not deter us from supporting a cause we believe to be just." - Abraham Lincoln

  13. #13
    Watch the hair!!!
    Join Date
    03.23.02
    Location
    Southeastern U.S.
    Posts
    1,673
    Favorite VH Album

    VH/Fair Warning/5150/F.U.C.K.
    Favorite VH Song

    R.Delight/Unchain./5150/C.Wabo
    Last Online

    07.22.09 @ 11:11 AM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Originally posted by Ikeda:
    good question. but are they going by gulf war I? because if bush is serious about taking bagdad, things are going to be a lot messier and slower than 3 weeks, i think. trying to take a city is completely different than wiping out the iraqi guard in the (relative) wide open. i'm no economist (and i don't play one on TV) but i'd think it'll be a hell of a lot closer to 15,000 than 500. too many hawks with rose colored glasses in that white house.
    “Too many hawks with rose colored glasses in that white house”?!? I think it’s safe to say that in practically EVERY White House the respective administrations have had “rose-colored glasses” when it comes to what they publicly state about the investment of time and money that will be involved with certain military operations. Most recently, didn’t Clinton say we’d be out of the Balkans by the 1996 presidential election -- or soon thereafter -- and we’re still there?!? Personally, I think we still need to have a presence there, but it goes to show how “rose-colored glasses” permeate every administration when it comes to preparing Americans for the amount of time and financial resources that U.S. military operations actually require.
    "Seems the old folks who come up short were the pretty little kids who didn't want it, no." - Van Halen (1979)

    "Our greatest glory is not in never falling but in rising every time we fall." - Confucius

    "The possibility that we may fail in the struggle should not deter us from supporting a cause we believe to be just." - Abraham Lincoln

  14. #14
    Banned!
    Join Date
    03.21.00
    Location
    Albany, NY
    Posts
    1,884
    Favorite VH Album

    BALANCE
    Favorite VH Song

    AFTERSHOCK
    Last Online

    03.20.07 @ 12:01 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Originally posted by billy007:
    Well, I think it's laughable that you can't understand that the government is there to look out for the interests of the United States, and if you don't think oil is in the interest of the United States, then you better think again. Don't like the fact that we fight over oil? Then perhaps a better form of protest would be parking your car and putting it up on blocks - oh, and don't bother with public transportation either, those vehicles need oil and gasoline. You live up north - don't know what you heat your home with, but if it's oil, better turn that thermostat off. Don't know where you work, but there's probably oil involved there too. Bottom line is, we've allowed ourselves to become dependent on oil, and while it would be nice to be able to wean ourselves off that dependency (and better for our environment), going cold turkey would destroy us faster than Rome. So, yeah, our government needs to do whatever it can to protect those interests, and if they have to take out a ruthless dictator or two along the way, all the better.
    That's just disgusting bro, seriously. I truly hope you don't believe this in your heart, but rather you're just trying to win an argument for argument's sake. That kind of logic is just disturbing. I'm sorry, but I would never condone 'our government doing whatever it can and ... take out a ruthless dictator or two along the way' to better our standard of living. Especially when 'taking out a dictator' is not that simple, and in this case will involve many thousands of innocent lives lost, upon the thousands already lost through sanctions and bombings. UNICEF estimates 500,000 Iraqi children have died in the last few years from sanctions and leftover Gulf War radiation alone.

    You think I 'love' using fossil fuels or something?? Not to justify my personal life or anything, but since you brought it up, I am cutting down my automotive driving. I have purchased a bicycle to ride to work, and I walk to the local market and YMCA rather than driving. So, yes I am conscious and making an effort, and trying my best not to be hypocritical. BUT, as you said, the government should be out for the best interests of everyone involved, right? Well...

    Means of alternative fuel/energy are there, and are feasible, and have been for years. Problem is, all of the automotive/oil companies gobble up the patents to these. SO, since oil reserves have yet to run out, and it's much more profitable to continue in this business for the time being, there is no need to switch...YET. Of course, it helps when ever major player in the US government has ties to one major oil conglomerate or another....that's a can of worms in itself. We could all be using alternative, environmentally safe, cost effective energy sources today if it were profitable to the powers that be. You and I don't have many alternative choices in the matter, but we don't need to take it. Under your logic, we should all lie down in defeat!

    Originally posted by billy007:

    This country has survived now for over 200 years doing things the way they do - and really, things haven't changed all that much when you think about it - and I think we do all right for ourselves. I'd still like to know what you'd have the country, the government do - how should the world run according to strungout?
    We all stay home, let all the smaller countries fight their own battles, only use what we produce - no imports, no exports - live on a big giant commune growing organic food all the while maintaining proper topsoil levels with peace and love and harmony for all? Well, if only the peace and love and harmony for all aspect of it was attainable, that would be a start. But I don't see it happening any time soon. But I really would like to know what it is you want to see happen.
    Feeding frenzy...but I gotta split. I'll be back for this mouthwatering post. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

  15. #15
    Atomic Punk MikeL's Avatar
    Join Date
    02.17.00
    Posts
    11,536
    Last Online

    03.03.15 @ 08:31 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 2 Times in 1 Post


    Donor

    Billy, he's in his own little world. Anyone who says "illusion of the Soviet threat," has a skewed enough perception of reality that they can't be conversed with rationally.

    I don't think it's possible to quanitify the cost of an Iraqi war right now. The real cost isn't in the war, but in the rebuilding and supporting of a new Iraqi regime afterwards. Almost 60 years after the fact, we've still got troops in Germany and Japan. After we completely removed their ability to threaten the world (and defend themselves, as well) we had to take on the responsibility of ensuring their sovereignty. Given the nature of Iraq's neighbors (and internal disidents) we'll have to do the same thing there. The Turks would go to war if the Kurds took power in Iraq, or established their own state. The Iranians would love to grab some land, and establish themselves as the dominant regional power. We're going to have our troops in Iraq for decades, and that's where the real cost occurs.

    The flip side is that it should begin to stabilize the region, and there are some real benefits to that. Will they offset the costs? I have no idea, and I wouldn't trust anyone who says they do.

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Iraqi official: Large-scale plot thwarted
    By voivod in forum VH Fans Meeting Place (Non-Music)
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03.14.06, 10:07 PM
  2. Iraqi rebels turn on al-Qaida in western city
    By voivod in forum VH Fans Meeting Place (Non-Music)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01.24.06, 03:05 PM
  3. Media's coverage has distorted world's view of Iraqi reality
    By TheresOnlyOneWay in forum VH Fans Meeting Place (Non-Music)
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 02.04.05, 12:19 PM
  4. PEORIA TIC COST!!
    By Jump in forum "Song For Song" Tour 2002
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06.07.02, 10:38 AM
  5. How much do original boots cost at oyu loca;l cd store??
    By Unchained Wolfie in forum Bootleg Network
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 09.13.00, 04:19 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •