Reviving another political/economic discussion

[Gawain 0]

So, things have been relatively quiet on the politics front. Everyone's in a holding pattern on Iraq, no one's switched sides in the UN...yada yada...

Our impact on the war of terror is continuously being debated.

There has been less discussion about some targeted economic affects of another attack against the US. This article discusses a study by the Brookings Institution on what the impacts on the economy could be from different types of attacks or by leaving Saddam in power over the long term.

I don't have enough information to form an opinion on this issue from an economics perspective.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,120]

>There has been less discussion about some targeted economic >affects of another attack against the US.

His numbers look valid; however, as we've discussed before, going to war with Iraq will almost certainly increase the odds of a terrorist attack against the US and may well increase it in the near to mid future as well. We should factor the costs of those possible attacks (in both monetary units and in human lives) into the cost of any war against Iraq.

[Shark 0]

Quote

His numbers look valid; however, as we've discussed before, going to war with Iraq will almost certainly increase the odds of a terrorist attack against the US and may well increase it in the near to mid future as well.

How do we know for certain? An assumption? What if Saddam is not removed by force and remains as dictator, will terrorism decrease?

[wmw999 2,589]

We will only know for certain whether Saddam being forced out of power by unilateral war if it happens.

Terrorism hasn't increased or decreased noticeably as a result of Saddam Hussein specifically. Yes, there are ties. But there were more ties to Muammar Qaddafi in the 80's, and he's still around. It may increase for other reasons. Saddam staying in power is unlikely to affect a lot of other things, too.

Will terrorism go up if we go to war against Saddam? I'd have to say that it's very likely to. Simply because there will be a whole lot more people who feel otherwise powerless and who see us as having attacked unilaterally. Nope, two wrongs don't make a right, but that hasn't stopped a lot of people in the past. People who feel otherwise powerless, and who don't feel as though they have a lot to lose personally, are more likely to engage in terrorism than people who feel like they have something to lose.

Am I an expert? Nope.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Shark 0]

Quote

What do I base my opinion on? My degree is in sociology, and I have a noticeable amount of research experience. I've lived overseas for extended periods, and have read pretty extensively. Does that make me an expert? Nope. But it's an educated opinion.

So either way, we don't know what's going to happen, right? Does my uneducated opinion count? I've earned an MBA with an emphasis Finance, am I able to tell the financial well being of a corporation? Yes, but could I have predicted that Worldcom or Enron would become bancrupt and delisted? No.

Bottom line is that nobody knows. May be we should have a historian chime in... It's all speculation.

When Operation Enduring Freedom started in Afghanistan did terrorism increase or decrease?

[lummy 4]

Quote

When Operation Enduring Freedom started in Afghanistan did terrorism increase or decrease?

I seem to recall that there are daily terrorist attacks in Afghanistan now. IF I remember correctly, they became more frequent as the likelyhood of invading Iraq became more real. I'll try n find the source

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[Gawain 0]

Quote

But there were more ties to Muammar Qaddafi in the 80's, and he's still around.

True, and since we bombed that f****r we've heard nary a peep from him.

---

The point of the article I cited and what I was hoping would spur some conversation on, was the economic impact. What will happen to the US and thus world economy?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[bhammond 0]

in reading the reply's to this thread I cant help but to pose a question.... most of the reply's have a certain theme... is it worth it , what will it cost, its like your shopping for a war, should we wait until it goes on sale??? what are your value's worth if they can be bought...
all I am saying is either we should or shouldn't on the merits of why we are doing it. not how much it cost.

[Michele 1]

What I find interesting is what happened to the Turkish markets today, in response to the "yes...well, no" vote. IIRC, it fell more than 5%, because of the debt relief it is not going to receive now, nor the infusion of cash for the use of the UN troops and the US troops. Also, our own markets are down, but I am not sure why.

OH! And by the way, I have no college degree.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[wmw999 2,589]

Sorry about the crack about the degree, I'm just tired of hearing how stupid and baseless somewhat liberal opinions are. And I know some real liberals who make most of the dz.com left look pretty moderate.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[harryskydives 0]

Terrorism hasn't increased or decreased noticeably as a result of Saddam Hussein specifically.

Let not forget that Saddam makes a $25,000 payment to the family of homicide bombers

Don't run out of altitude and experience at the same time...

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

And I know some real liberals who make most of the dz.com left look pretty moderate

I do to, I have to give props to the left of center guys and gals on DZ.com, though. Yall tend to atleast listen and consider a point of discussion. The people I know IRL that are WAY left of center don't even do that, they consider their opinion the only correct opinion and discard the rest.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[sarge 0]

Ok,

Quote

The point of the article I cited and what I was hoping would spur some conversation on, was the economic impact.

I think the Paladin Group has a newly released, "Homeland Security Fund" Hmmm, now this sounds interestingly tasty, since its design is based on industries that cover a four-corner smorgsborg of investment opportunities: prevention, reaction, coping and recovery (basically)

During the Roosevelt era we know that the "New Deal" and the [other one] had no signifacant impact to improving our national economy. The solution??? RAISE TAXES, thats how.

During the era of WW2 however, there was no world economy, there was the Dollar! The US dominated world trade in exports. That was the saving grace of the economy back then. Now, with the deficit growing ever larger we have an adminstration making tax-CUTS! Making promises of domestic/foriegn spending that are ridiculous, where's the $$ ?

Johnson promised his pals that they would make a killing in vietnam; they did (no pun intended). As did everbody that invested in Rockwell, Boeing, etc... But the for the rest of the unfortunate taxpayers, what?

Now on a grand scale this is a minor 'war' but recovery costs, interest on investvent, will far outweigh the entry costs, which will pale in comparison.

.

--
I'm done with the personally meaningful and philosophical sigs!!

[Jib 0]

Quote

What I find interesting is what happened to the Turkish markets today, in response to the "yes...well, no" vote. IIRC, it fell more than 5%, because of the debt relief it is not going to receive now, nor the infusion of cash for the use of the UN troops and the US troops. Also, our own markets are down, but I am not sure why.

Speaking of Turkey, I wonder if it doesn't have some concerns regarding a post-war Iraq. Specifically, Sen Biden went to visit the Iraqi Kurds, who are interested in a state or at least, an influence on Bagdad in a post-war Iraq. The Kurdish minority in Turkey hasn't gotten along well with the government (to say the least). So, could Turkey be concerned about a stability problem in eastern Turkey outweighed by any aid package the US provided?

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[billvon 3,120]

>Let not forget that Saddam makes a $25,000 payment to the
> family of homicide bombers.

And Reagan sent _billions_ to radical islamic terrorists so they would kill russians. Apparently it's a popular (and justifiable) game of international politics.

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

>Let not forget that Saddam makes a $25,000 payment to the
> family of homicide bombers.

And Reagan sent _billions_ to radical islamic terrorists so they would kill russians. Apparently it's a popular (and justifiable) game of international politics.

There is a small difference here. The "radical islamic terrorists" were fighting against Soviet Military Troops occupying their country. Saddam is supporting suicide bombers who are targeting civilians.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin