|war will be good for the economy||DougSloan|
Feb 4, 2003 2:16 PM
|We unseat Saddam, take over Iraq, and turn up the oil wells to max. Oil returns to $10 a barrel, and it jumpstarts the economy here. Where's the problem?
|maybe, or we start the invasion and...||rwbadley|
Feb 4, 2003 4:35 PM
|Saddam lobs whatever wmd he has at his neighboring states, turns his own wells into fireballs, and gasses his own population so they will be protected from our liberation.
N. Korea figures we're distracted just enough to lob a big one on Seoul. The S Koreans retaliate.
The price of oil goes up to $150 bbl. Commerce has stopped with the resulting destabilization of currency values. Food sources dry up with the loss of (cheap)petrochemical fertilizer.
Heh heh. Just playing a little on both sides,
|I guess you takes your chances... nm||DougSloan|
Feb 4, 2003 4:49 PM
Feb 4, 2003 5:32 PM
|How big will the new SUVs become. What will they call the these vehicles? Action Busses? (is there a plural for bus?) ATV Vans? Gigantosours?|
|Suburban evolves in the Subdivision. nm||sn69|
Feb 4, 2003 6:26 PM
|one in every driveway...||DougSloan|
Feb 4, 2003 8:23 PM
|I can't believe I'm LOLing at your sick jokes. nm||carnageasada|
Feb 5, 2003 6:24 AM
|Around here, that one's a compact... I need something..||rwbadley|
Feb 5, 2003 7:36 AM
|BIGGER! With an elevator to the top!
|That is hysterical. LOL! nm||Sintesi|
Feb 5, 2003 6:40 PM
|a more modest version||DougSloan|
Feb 4, 2003 8:36 PM
|re: war will be good for the economy||Skip|
Feb 4, 2003 6:06 PM
|Best, We set off a couple dozen well placed neutron bombs. It eliminates all the "evil doers", leaving all the infrastructure intact. Problems solved! Where's the problem?|
|Oh yah baby||camp fellow|
Feb 5, 2003 5:46 AM
|if you make body bags and/or gas masks you're gonna be rakin' it in.|
|re: war will be good for the economy||wookieontherun|
Feb 5, 2003 6:18 AM
|Where's the problem? Maybe the problem is in that we are going to have to kill countless civilians who have no part in this thing... Maybe the problem is that by starting a war in Iraq we are really likely to ignite an entire region into warfare... Maybe the problem is that we now have troops headed to N. Korea, Afghanistan, and Iraq... doesn't this alarm anyone else? Maybe the problem is that Iraq hasn't even posed a threat to us until Warmonger Bush decided to stroke his oil ego by picking a war with a nation that most of the rest of the world, who is somewhat sane, realizes is based on a load of crap.
Oh and you wanna jump start the economy? Work on finding a more efficient fuel source than oil! Guess what- it will solve our problems with Iraq, Iran, and even areas of South America. And not only that, if we can find a stable solution here in the US goods production will again be boosted here!
War isn't good for the economy, it isn't good for anyone. Oh yah, and your bullshit egocentric idea of taking over somone's country? Wanna know how that feels? Talk to someone who has lived in a country under colonial rule... ask them how it feels... gonna find that it isn't too pretty. We aren't liberators here, just assholes.
|I guess the tongue-in-cheekness didn't come through nm||DougSloan|
Feb 5, 2003 6:50 AM
|all the innocent people that die in the process? (nm)||ColnagoFE|
Feb 5, 2003 7:17 AM
|broken window theory||Duane Gran|
Feb 5, 2003 8:14 AM
|If a window breaks, someone needs to fix it. That creates jobs. Therefore, our economy will be better if we break more windows.
War is sort of like this. For a while the wheels of war are spinning and the sheer act of spending money acts as a stimulus to the economy, but in the end the bill must be paid.
I personally think the economy is sagging because of all the uncertainty about war. It makes most people careful about what they spend and how they invest. I suspect a final declaration of war (or no war) will have a good impact on the economy.
|Maybe, if you're not troubled by a mess o' dead people.||cory|
Feb 5, 2003 8:44 AM
|Actually there are two arguments about what war will do to the economy, and general agreement that this question isn't as simple as it used to be. Short-term oil prices almost certainly will go up (the alarmist prices I've read are $5 a gallon for gas, but I can't see even Bush/Cheney letting that happen). And there's always the specter of Saddam, in extremis, lobbing the last of his missiles at the Saudi oil fields.
Even if none of that happens, though, isn't anyone troubled by the moral and ethical questions of whether the U.S. has the right to kill a couple of hundred thousand people (generally accepted estimate of casualties in the Gulf War) to boost our economy and make the world safe for big oil?
Feb 5, 2003 10:07 AM
|When you say casualties, do you really mean a couple hundred thousand people were KILLED in the Gulf War? The 1991 war? Or do you mean projected deaths in the coming war?|
|Gulf War I Iraqi casualties||velocity|
Feb 5, 2003 12:29 PM
|In Gulf War I the US estimated that 100,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed. Contrast that with 148 US battle deaths and 145 US nonbattle deaths. Iraq also says we killed 30,000 civilians and many human rights groups claim the Iraqi casualties were much higher than 100,000 -- hence the 200,000 number. I've attached a CNN link with all the details, including the human and financial cost of that war.
|How many Kurd's did Iraq kill between '74 and '91? Anyone know? -nm||Tig|
Feb 6, 2003 7:41 AM