| Author |
 Topic  |
|
bjlt
Senior Member
1144 Posts |
 Posted - 26 March 2003 : 00:54:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by seahorse
Sales of weapons in no way covers the cost of the war. Weapon sales are typically in the order of single digit billions.
For your thinking, the PROFITS from weapons sales would have to exceed the cost of the war for the US to benefit. Remember when you sell something you have give the person something a jet fighter, guns, etc., so only a small fraction of the 1, 3, 5 billion in a weapons sale would be profit. The US would have to sell hundreds or thousands of billions in weapons to make up the cost of the war.
It seems you forgot the oil? and government's investments on weapons remain in the circulation, right? |
Edited by - bjlt on 26 March 2003 00:57:02 |
 |
|
|
Deleted
deleted
4116 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 00:57:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by RichardKinser
Bozden, so you are going to quote what I wrote in your message, but you aren't going to answer my questions? If you aren't going to answer my questions, then don't quote my post in yours.
I actually did answer them both. Do you want me to color code my answers?
|
 Stop the WAR! |
|
|
|
GauravBhabu
Advanced Member
4288 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 01:02:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred
quote:
Originally posted by GauravBhabu
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred
...A war has two sides.
Sure War has two sides. One of the sides is always forced into War.
You are losing focus!
My statement was intended to show that the topic concerned the war, and not the U.S. alone.
This is called quoting "out of context", and considered unprofessional discussion tactics.
quote:
Originally posted by GauravBhabu
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred
[quote]The topic was not called "1001 reasons why we don't want the world to hurt Saddam."
You got it!
I sure hope that this answer of yours was just an error!
Otherwise it would explain a lot about your stance - and it would not be complimentary...
If you think something is "Out of Context" that does not mean it is so.
Sure it was not an error and for sure the topic is not about what you mentioned. And if you did not mean what you wrote then you will definately have difficulty to take it as an compliment. |
|
|
|
RichardKinser
Snitz Forums Admin
USA
16655 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 01:13:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by bozden
quote:
Originally posted by RichardKinser
Bozden, so you are going to quote what I wrote in your message, but you aren't going to answer my questions? If you aren't going to answer my questions, then don't quote my post in yours.
I actually did answer them both. Do you want me to color code my answers?
so you answered why you present your opinions as fact, and why you think that others are not in a position to judge, but you somehow are. Sorry, reading your response above I just don't see it. |
|
|
|
seahorse
Senior Member
USA
1075 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 01:14:17
|
quote:
It seems you forgot the oil? and government's investments on weapons remain in the circulation, right?
I didn't forget the oil. I just know the military sales costs better. If you like, you can easily calculate the amount that might be gain from the US controlling Iraqi oil, assuming that it does so.
Take the current price of a barrel of oil. For argument sake, assume an average price inflation of 2% per year compounded annually (This is very generous considering that oil prices generally have been flat.)
Look up the highest annual oil production for Iraq in barrels. If this number is not available you can use the highest annual oil production for Saudi Arabia (Saudi Arabia is the largest oil producer, I believe.)
Look up the profit margin on a barrel of oil. This will vary according to the country. (I think Saudi Arabia also has the best profit margin.)
Multiply the profit margin (X%) by the current price of oil. Then multiply that number against the highest annual oil production number for Iraq.
That will tell you how much oil PROFIT and for how many years the US must control Iraqi oil in order to recover the cost of the war.
Let me know what you find.
|
Ken
===============
Worldwide Partner Group
Microsoft |
|
|
|
bjlt
Senior Member
1144 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 01:19:29
|
Several days ago I used MSN with a Canadian friend who's in Canada. I typed some words about bomb, kill and he made jokes on it asking me not to use these words and that may bring us trouble. I said why I might be in troulbe if I'd typed some anti-government phrases but they were not. He said the governments there are monitoring those words. Then I said it doesn't matter to me. His comment was I'm protected by my communist shield, and he's protected by the liberal shield. Nevertheless someone may knock on his door at night just like some one might do to me.
Sorry if this is not directly related to this topic but since that's the law has passed in the US I do wonder what's happening there.
About the picture of happy Arabs after 911, it also depends on how you view it. If you think it's pure a matter of religion it somehow shows you take it as a religion matter yourself but it might not be. I remember one challenged the school in the US for the school asking his daughter saying something about god everying morning (sorry can't remember the detail but you know what I mean or get the idea, right?) It's reported some people were really unhappy about the case. I know the US has freedom and it's solved at last, what I'd like to say is the attitude, it's natural but don't you see the problem? People outside the US may take such attitude rather offensive and it might be wrong against your own principle indeed sometime. Sorry for the example is also religion related but it's the one came up in my mind.
Continue my last discussions on American histroy ,it's said that's a long time ago, well 250 years was not a long time ago and the fact is the current world is highly affected by the histroy of that time still. I mean thought American now might be matured but many problems are a result of the actions when nations were not this maturred, and many people do feel unfairness.
Yes I know time has changed.
|
Edited by - bjlt on 26 March 2003 02:27:37 |
|
|
|
Alfred
Senior Member
USA
1527 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 01:21:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by GauravBhabu
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred
quote:
Originally posted by GauravBhabu
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred
...A war has two sides.
Sure War has two sides. One of the sides is always forced into War.
You are losing focus!
My statement was intended to show that the topic concerned the war, and not the U.S. alone.
This is called quoting "out of context", and considered unprofessional discussion tactics.
quote:
Originally posted by GauravBhabu
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred
[quote]The topic was not called "1001 reasons why we don't want the world to hurt Saddam."
You got it!
I sure hope that this answer of yours was just an error!
Otherwise it would explain a lot about your stance - and it would not be complimentary...
If you think something is "Out of Context" that does not mean it is so.
Sure it was not an error and for sure the topic is not about what you mentioned. And if you did not mean what you wrote then you will definately have difficulty to take it as an compliment.
I am not going to explain the principle of "out of context" to you, particularly since you seem to think you know it.
The second point you make clearly shows that you did not understand the other remark.
What it means is that it would be "not complimentary" to your character if you approve of the title "1001 reasons why we don't want the world to hurt Saddam.". |
Alfred
The Battle Group
CREDO
|
|
|
|
seahorse
Senior Member
USA
1075 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 01:21:14
|
quote:
government's investments on weapons remain in the circulation, right?
I'm not sure I follow you here. If you are referring to continuing profit made from weapon maintenance, that is much harder to calculate. Countries spend different amounts to maintain their equipment. Some don't maintain their equipment at all.
I would count this as a cost and not a profit center. |
Ken
===============
Worldwide Partner Group
Microsoft |
|
|
|
Alfred
Senior Member
USA
1527 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 01:24:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by seahorse
quote:
Seahorse, it seems you misconstrued the point of my sarcastic remark...
Glad to hear that I have. Despite our differences in opinion, I have no desire to think poorly of you.
Actually, I was under the impression that our views were much closer than they are to a couple or three others in here... |
Alfred
The Battle Group
CREDO
|
|
|
|
bjlt
Senior Member
1144 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 01:35:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by seahorse
[quote]
Let me know what you find.
What did you find? well, you may take indirect benefits from it. better control of oil in whole middle east, factors maybe affect by the price of oil.
There are other interests such reconstruction contracst, remember Iraq is one of the richest country without a sanction. and investment on the war does not go to the air, it's in the circulation still.
No I don't say American is there simply for the oil, and I don't say it can cover all the expense. I just wanted to say in terms of money it's no pure cost but no income. |
|
|
|
seahorse
Senior Member
USA
1075 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 01:39:01
|
If you are interested in costs of the war on typical Americans, they are already being felt.
The Senate has voted to reduce the size of President Bush's tax cut. I think politicians understand better than anyone the costs of the war.
We get a smaller tax cut. Possibly no tax cut by the time this make it through the House of Representatives.
Remember the deficit and the 75 billion+ the war will add to it. From here on out politicans will cite it as the reason why national parks fees are higher, why the social security cost of living increase is smaller, why services are cut back, why there are fewer park rangers at Yellowstone National Park, why the roads aren't maintained like they used to, why there are fewer government grants for college students, etc.
There won't be small fine print on every government service telling you that your govenment benefits are smaller or the fees are higher becuase of the war costs, but those costs will be there.
|
Ken
===============
Worldwide Partner Group
Microsoft |
Edited by - seahorse on 26 March 2003 01:51:38 |
|
|
|
bjlt
Senior Member
1144 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 01:42:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by seahorse
quote:
government's investments on weapons remain in the circulation, right?
I'm not sure I follow you here. If you are referring to continuing profit made from weapon maintenance, that is much harder to calculate. Countries spend different amounts to maintain their equipment. Some don't maintain their equipment at all.
I would count this as a cost and not a profit center.
well, spending on research/produce of weapons is a public expenditure. when the government spends 1$ it's paid to someone then he can use the 1$ to consume or invest, which results more consuming and investment. Them factor is different in each country but usually it's more than 1$. It can boost the economy but not always, if the economy is highly depends on public expenditures there might be a problem.
And result of research of weapons could be used in other ways which is also a benefit of the expenditure, we know how tech developed in WWII.
|
Edited by - bjlt on 26 March 2003 01:45:26 |
|
|
|
seahorse
Senior Member
USA
1075 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 01:47:25
|
bjlt,
I haven't found anything. I'm waiting for you to to the investigating
I understand where you are going with your comments, but I would argue that those indirect benefits are insufficient to justify the war.
I think you will agree that war is expensive. I don't believe that there is a economic calculation that proves that war results in profit. True SOME may benefit, bu the majority lose. If war always resulted in profit, no one would be at peace.
|
Ken
===============
Worldwide Partner Group
Microsoft |
|
|
|
bjlt
Senior Member
1144 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 01:49:20
|
profit might be a wrong word, sorry.
However basically the cost is not a problem, the congressman and the politicians can analize it pretty good and make the decision, though they may make mistakes.
the benefit is not calculated in money. I was not to discuss how much one can get from a war, yes everybody involved lose.
Basically it's natural one does something for better gain or less loss, and that's why we have the stateman and government, right?
Thumbs up if one takes action purely for the benefits of others, wish he's doing it the right way. |
Edited by - bjlt on 26 March 2003 01:55:40 |
|
|
|
GauravBhabu
Advanced Member
4288 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 01:51:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred
I am not going to explain the principle of "out of context" to you, particularly since you seem to think you know it.
Neither would I, since you seem to believe that you know better.
quote:
The second point you make clearly shows that you did not understand the other remark...
It will be lot easier to understand if you write what you mean. Each of my remark were in response to what you wrote.
Long day. Need some sleep Now
Peace.
|
Edited by - GauravBhabu on 26 March 2003 01:55:37 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
