Iraq war cost still not over 1% of GDP

[So-cal]

I could not get the article but i was just wondering if any of the micheal moores out there knew this.

[brit]

Whatever statistic people pull out (there are articles that point out the spending now matches Vietnam adjusted for inflation) the amount is the same- $500 billion in borrowed money down the drain.

[Sirgezza]

Originally Posted by So-cal

I could not get the article but i was just wondering if any of the micheal moores out there knew this.

How much does 1% of GDP equate to in percentage terms of the tax revenue for the US government. That is the amount that they have ''lost'' that could have been put to other uses, or saved in borrowing.

[spartan]

Originally Posted by Sirgezza

How much does 1% of GDP equate to in percentage terms of the tax revenue for the US government. That is the amount that they have ''lost'' that could have been put to other uses, or saved in borrowing.

"lost"? First of all Michael Moore is an idiot. But for arguments sake let's try calculating the loss of money directly post 9/11, almost all of our airlines went bankrupt, our tourism industry tanked for nearly two years, the cost to rebuild the WTC site is immense. Not to mention the 3000+ civilians that died in one day. 1% probably isn't enough. Keeping the country free from further terror attacks keeps the economy alive, the tax dollars from tourism rolling in and the citizens safe. And before anyone gets started on the Iraq tantrum, that 1% GDP figure includes Homeland Security costs, everything from port security to the Coast Guard. Keeping the terrorist out and the oil flowing costs money.

[Sirgezza]

Originally Posted by spartan

"lost"? First of all Michael Moore is an idiot. But for arguments sake let's try calculating the loss of money directly post 9/11, almost all of our airlines went bankrupt, our tourism industry tanked for nearly two years, the cost to rebuild the WTC site is immense. Not to mention the 3000+ civilians that died in one day. 1% probably isn't enough. Keeping the country free from further terror attacks keeps the economy alive, the tax dollars from tourism rolling in and the citizens safe. And before anyone gets started on the Iraq tantrum, that 1% GDP figure includes Homeland Security costs, everything from port security to the Coast Guard. Keeping the terrorist out and the oil flowing costs money.

So, following the invasion of Iraq, has the threat of terrorism increased or decreased for the western world?

[faultytowers]

Originally Posted by spartan

Keeping the terrorist out and the oil flowing costs money.

So , which one of these is the 'real' issue ??????????

[ub2yoo]

Originally Posted by faultytowers

So , which one of these is the 'real' issue ??????????

Could it be both are hopelessly linked ?

[faultytowers]

Originally Posted by ub2yoo

Could it be both are hopelessly linked ?

Sorry , I was being sarcastic , just found the final line of spartan's post strange. Is it a "war on terror" or as others imply , more about keeping cars on the road ??????

[spartan]

Originally Posted by faultytowers

So , which one of these is the 'real' issue ??????????

Both,

Like it or not oil is a need, not a want. It's a key element in all of our lives and we use it for a lot more than just a Sunday drive. Stop the oil flow and the Western world falls apart, food production comes to a stand still, the lights all go off and forget about heat in the winter months. It's such a valuable and profitable commodity due to it's demand. Everything from tennis shoes to a loaf of bread is produced using oil. It's pretty damn important that those wells keep pumping. Notice all of the posts complaining about increasing airline fares to LOS, now imagine Saddam controlling 3/4 of the oil fields in the middle east.

[faultytowers]

Originally Posted by spartan

now imagine Saddam controlling 3/4 of the oil fields in the middle east.

No need to imagine it , he did !!!! But of course , that was when he was considered to be one of "our allies".

[brit]

Originally Posted by spartan

now imagine Saddam controlling 3/4 of the oil fields in the middle east.

I'll go out on a limb here and suggest you must get your news from FOX.

[MrDK]

Originally Posted by brit

I'll go out on a limb here and suggest you must get your news from FOX.

What's your point?

[Dupree00]

Originally Posted by spartan

But for arguments sake let's try calculating the loss of money directly post 9/11, almost all of our airlines went bankrupt, our tourism industry tanked for nearly two years, the cost to rebuild the WTC site is immense. Not to mention the 3000+ civilians that died in one day.

You don't really believe that Iraq was responsible for this? Do you?

[Benjy]

Originally Posted by spartan

Both,

Like it or not oil is a need, not a want. It's a key element in all of our lives and we use it for a lot more than just a Sunday drive. Stop the oil flow and the Western world falls apart, food production comes to a stand still, the lights all go off and forget about heat in the winter months. It's such a valuable and profitable commodity due to it's demand. Everything from tennis shoes to a loaf of bread is produced using oil. It's pretty damn important that those wells keep pumping. Notice all of the posts complaining about increasing airline fares to LOS, now imagine Saddam controlling 3/4 of the oil fields in the middle east.

I'm pretty sure bread isn't made from oil....

No offense but vegetable oils can be used instead of Diesel, power stations can be run on coal, or gas, or sunlight or water.

Saddam controlled all the oil in Iraq before without a blimp on the oil industry, If ol stopped flowing tommorow I reckon the Western economies would have adapted and be free in about 18 months. The technologies already there, theres no impetus to use it whilst the cost of ol is so cheap, change that and those other options look very very attractive.

[Allybabba22]

Another thread just to stir the shit

[spartan]

Originally Posted by brit

I'll go out on a limb here and suggest you must get your news from FOX.

I get my news from history, he didn't invade Kuwait for the beaches.

[spartan]

Originally Posted by Allybabba22

Another thread just to stir the shit

Very true, I'm out. There is no point stirring it further.

[dawsey]

Nothing to be gained by keeping this thread going. Ally is right, it was posted in the hope of starting arguements.
So-cal, if you have nothing to back up your statement, don't post these type of threads to cause friction