Economic implications of being in Iraq/Iran/ Afghanistan beyond 2008

[Martin Gale]

I realize this post is about the economic implications of Iraq/Afghan occupation beyond 2008 -- but I just gotta take the opportunity:

The majority of Americans say get out of Iraq.
Bush says we're staying in Iraq.

Is this a democracy or not? This cocky asshole needs to be put in his place. This issue goes beyond partisan lines.

 

[mahram]

well is this a war or semi occupation, with a spurt of nation building. If we are talking about colonism type thing where we are inserting democracy, then there is a historical basis for being costly to the economy. It caused the downfall of the british empire and french empires.

Quote from hofficita:

Foreign wars have historically been and economic boon, as long as you win. Not only is domestic production of military supplies stimulative, the technological innovations that have historically been developed as a direct result of battlefield needs are proof enough of the economic beneficence.

 

[mahram]

the moral implications of the war, occupation, nation building scheme, what ever is beyond the scope of this thread. We are focusing on the economics of its all. There is 2 schools of thought on this thread. One this war is good for the economy because it shifts billions of dollers into the economy and 2 this war is bad because we are spending billions and our debt/deficit are ballooning. But my question is what is this Iraq thing. Is it a war or is it a colonial type nation building scheme. If its a war, there is historical data showing wars benefit the economy, but if its colonism type nation building scheme, there is data its really harmful to the economy.

Quote from Martin Gale:

I realize this post is about the economic implications of Iraq/Afghan occupation beyond 2008 -- but I just gotta take the opportunity:

The majority of Americans say get out of Iraq.
Bush says we're staying in Iraq.

Is this a democracy or not? This cocky asshole needs to be put in his place. This issue goes beyond partisan lines.

 

[hofficita]

Quote from Martin Gale:

I realize this post is about the economic implications of Iraq/Afghan occupation beyond 2008 -- but I just gotta take the opportunity:

The majority of Americans say get out of Iraq.
Bush says we're staying in Iraq.

Is this a democracy or not? This cocky asshole needs to be put in his place. This issue goes beyond partisan lines.

I don't know where you are from, or how little you know of the US system of government, but the US has a 'Representative Democracy' as opposed to a 'Direct Democracy.' The US does not have referendums. Officials are elected, and thereby granted the authority by the populace to make decisions on their behalf.

 

[hofficita]

Quote from mahram:

well is this a war or semi occupation, with a spurt of nation building. If we are talking about colonism type thing where we are inserting democracy, then there is a historical basis for being costly to the economy. It caused the downfall of the british empire and french empires.

Colonialism is extremely profitable- until it is not. Tell me the Spanish did not profit from the colonization of South and Central America. They scored boat-loads (literally) of precious metals and jewels for years. Tell me the Brits didn't profit from mercantilism under their empire. They did not become an empire because they were poor.

Yes, all great empires have fallen; but it was the wealth of war that permitted the expansion to begin with.

I am not saying that the US should follow this course, but should not miss any economic benefit to be had in the legitimate confrontation of enemies.

 

[Martin Gale]

Quote from hofficita:

I don't know where you are from, or how little you know of the US system of government, but the US has a 'Representative Democracy' as opposed to a 'Direct Democracy.' The US does not have referendums. Officials are elected, and thereby granted the authority by the populace to make decisions on their behalf.

And I don't know if you can comprehend that the elected officials of the US aren't representing the interests of the populace.

 

[hofficita]

Quote from Martin Gale:

And I don't know if you can comprehend that the elected officials of the US aren't representing the interests of the populace.

That is irrelevant at this point in time. Good leaders often are forced to do things contrary to the wishes of their constituents.