The news on McCrystal is dominating the blog sites. But no one has the stones to call it for what it truly is. A huge waste of time, money and energy.

Here's another thinking conservative author that explains that wars artificially inflate GDP...and are truly adding to our economic woes.

http://www.amconmag.com/blog/war-makes-us-poor/

Interesting read. Makes sense to me. Thanks for posting.

makes sense to me, too. Wouldn't it be better to spend the $150 billion on 'infrastructure' that has a durable life versus just destroying things?

1984 by George Orwell describes war perfectly as a means of keeping production and enthusiasm high while producing nothing that betters the lives of citizens. It merely spends the fruits of their labors on foreign lands.

Imagine if instead of the nearly $1 trillion we've spent on these wars we spent that money doing things for our country. That could make a sick ass wall across the Mexican border or could probably have got a good head start on some sweet new infrastructure shit (competitive internet pipes for one).

I just thought of another thing we could have spent all that money on. OUR TERRIBLE DAMNED PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM!! But you know, who gives a shit about that right?

And all this time I thought that killing people and destroying things produced economic growth.

Anyone who thinks that war is a means to some kind of economic benefit needs a mental heath evaluation. War is necessary at times no doubt about that. We all know there are evil forces in this world that provide us with no choice. But by its very nature it will extract a great price from any nation or people choosing to engage in it. Its price goes far above any material cost. Its price tag should never be weighed in green, although I understand that is an aspect, but in its real cost is red. Red with the blood of young lives eternally snuffed out. The cost of war carries with it an eternal price tag. Infrastructure can be rebuilt but human lives can't. It is the cost of war that trumps all others. Blood.

Violations of the constitution by the federal government have extracted no greater price on the American people than diminishing congress's power to declare war. Many presidents and the congresses that served under them have abused this power. Jefferson (barbary wars), presidents during the conflicts with native Americans, Lincoln (civil war), Truman (Korean war), JFK/LBJ/Nixon (Vietnam war), Reagan (Grenada), Bush I (Panama, Gulf War), Clinton (Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo), Bush II (Afghanistan, Iraq), and Obama (Afghanistan). All ordered American citizens to risk the shedding of their priceless blood in offensive action without a seeking a constitutionally mandated declaration of war.

Of all our presidents Lincoln's action extracted the highest price, followed by the Vietnam trio of JFK/LBJ/Nixon, and Truman in Korea. All of you that believe the Constitution should not be strictly interpreted, herein lies its cost. Nearly 800,000 Americans lives eternally snuffed out.

^^^This

If the underlying purpose of this thread is to insinuate that that conservatives in general think war is good for the economy nothing can be further from the truth. War is a despicable but sometimes necessary waste of economic resources and human lives.

believer;400971 wrote:^^^This

If the underlying purpose of this thread is to insinuate that that conservatives in general think war is good for the economy nothing can be further from the truth. War is a despicable but sometimes necessary waste of economic resources and human lives.

If????

believer;400971 wrote:^^^This

If the underlying purpose of this thread is to insinuate that that conservatives in general think war is good for the economy nothing can be further from the truth. War is a despicable but sometimes necessary waste of economic resources and human lives.

Yes I agree, but in the case of Iraq and currently Afghanistan, I don't think it is necessary.

I don't think that's necessarily the point of the thread or the article. It's been a widely adopted opinion that wars can invigorate economies. This seems to say that it's not necessarily true.

But yeah, I don't like war but I'm not naive enough to think that it's always avoidable. However, I don't think the current two wars are needed or just. Afghanistan may have been immediately after 9/11 but not now almost a full decade later.

fish82;400986 wrote:If????

That is not the "under lying theme" of the article at all. The author is a conservative....not a liberal.

dwccrew;401133 wrote:Yes I agree, but in the case of Iraq and currently Afghanistan, I don't think it is necessary.

Obviously I agree with your assessment on Iraq and Afghanistan. With that said, the author is generalizing and speaking of all wars...stating that wars have never shown an advance in the economy..even with the victors going the soils.

Footwedge;401287 wrote:Obviously I agree with your assessment on Iraq and Afghanistan. With that said, the author is generalizing and speaking of all wars...stating that wars have never shown an advance in the economy..even with the victors going the soils.

Well, if we're talking in general terms, I don't know if that statement (the one I bolded) is necessarily true...

Footwedge;401287 wrote:Obviously I agree with your assessment on Iraq and Afghanistan. With that said, the author is generalizing and speaking of all wars...stating that wars have never shown an advance in the economy..even with the victors going the soils.

Ehh, WWI and WWII provide cases where wars did promote the economy.
But, largely, I agree with the article that the funding of the so called "military industrial complex" is overall not a good thing for a country's economy. Yes, defense is important, but so is a strong infrastructure, good education and a strong civil society.

CenterBHSFan;401299 wrote:Well, if we're talking in general terms, I don't know if that statement (the one I bolded) is necessarily true...

Then you are disagreeing with the author's assessment...which is fine.

ptown_trojans_1;401300 wrote:Ehh, WWI and WWII provide cases where wars did promote the economy.
But, largely, I agree with the article that the funding of the so called "military industrial complex" is overall not a good thing for a country's economy. Yes, defense is important, but so is a strong infrastructure, good education and a strong civil society.

Not to be redundant, but you evidently have not read the article paragraph by paragraph. Or, you flat out disagree with the facts he presents, which is OK. Now if you want to argue that the American economy boomed in the 20's and late 40's because of war, I guess you would be accurate. But then why did the US' economy boom during those times? It had to do with the massive trade business whereby the US sold gobs of goods to countries that had been obliterated by rockets, bombs, tanks, and grenades. The net result of WWI and WWII were huge negatives in terms of global economics.

The hundreds of years of hard labor in a city as beautiful as Dresden, was completely wiped out in one 48 hour bombing campaign. Not exactly a net plus for the global economy.

Footwedge;401305 wrote:Then you are disagreeing with the author's assessment...which is fine.

That's just it. I don't KNOW if I agree with that or not.

I guess (sometimes) it just depends on which book you want to read.

Footwedge;401314 wrote:Not to be redundant, but you evidently have not read the article paragraph by paragraph. Or, you flat out disagree with the facts he presents, which is OK. Now if you want to argue that the American economy boomed in the 20's and late 40's because of war, I guess you would be accurate. But then why did the US' economy boom during those times? It had to do with the massive trade business whereby the US sold gobs of goods to countries that had been obliterated by rockets, bombs, tanks, and grenades. The net result of WWI and WWII were huge negatives in terms of global economics.

The hundreds of years of hard labor in a city as beautiful as Dresden, was completely wiped out in one 48 hour bombing campaign. Not exactly a net plus for the global economy.

I'd largely agree to what he was saying, but also add that a massive economic aid plan, such as the Marshal plan, as well as economic integration from France and West Germany rebounded the economy in Europe. One could argue that that aid and economic integration would not have occurred without war.

One could also say that collective security arrangements such as NATO can deepen cooperation and further allow economic transfer.

War is bad, yes, and is bad for most economies as it drains domestic resources, but it can have medium and long term good effects.

Footwedge;401314 wrote:Not to be redundant, but you evidently have not read the article paragraph by paragraph. Or, you flat out disagree with the facts he presents, which is OK. Now if you want to argue that the American economy boomed in the 20's and late 40's because of war, I guess you would be accurate. But then why did the US' economy boom during those times? It had to do with the massive trade business whereby the US sold gobs of goods to countries that had been obliterated by rockets, bombs, tanks, and grenades. The net result of WWI and WWII were huge negatives in terms of global economics.

The hundreds of years of hard labor in a city as beautiful as Dresden, was completely wiped out in one 48 hour bombing campaign. Not exactly a net plus for the global economy.

Good post. That last statement pretty much sums it up.

Footwedge;401283 wrote:That is not the "under lying theme" of the article at all. The author is a conservative....not a liberal.

I know. The question was about the thread, not the article.

ptown_trojans_1;401300 wrote:Ehh, WWI and WWII provide cases where wars did promote the economy.
But, largely, I agree with the article that the funding of the so called "military industrial complex" is overall not a good thing for a country's economy. Yes, defense is important, but so is a strong infrastructure, good education and a strong civil society.

During WW1/2, our manufacturing base was significantly larger than it is today, and received significant boosts from both conflicts, IMO. The lack of such a base today plays a large part in the negative economic effects of modern warfare...again IMO.

fish82;401353 wrote:During WW1/2, our manufacturing base was significantly larger than it is today, and received significant boosts from both conflicts, IMO. The lack of such a base today plays a large part in the negative economic effects of modern warfare...again IMO.

Agreed.
War today is isolated to one sector of the economy and not integrated into the economy as a whole. Then again, the nature and scale of conflict is completely different.

Freedom is worth any cost, you can't simply put a value on freedom.

sleeper;401544 wrote:Freedom is worth any cost, you can't simply put a value on freedom.

Does this only apply for us then? Because I'm pretty sure our freedom has nothing to do with Iraq.

I Wear Pants;401938 wrote:Does this only apply for us then? Because I'm pretty sure our freedom has nothing to do with Iraq.

I remember a time before September 11, 2001 when I had the freedom to walk quickly through relatively modest airport security (even with my shoes on). Yes that used to happen!

The war on terror (including the toppling of tyrants like Saddam Hussein and taking a stand against fascist Islam) is all about freedom.

Footwedge;401314 wrote:The hundreds of years of hard labor in a city as beautiful as Dresden, was completely wiped out in one 48 hour bombing campaign.

Adolf Hitler will do that to you.

Wars have historically been, and continue to be, and excuse for increased deficit spending. That does provide some economic benefit. But, sure, you could put that money to work without the war but the justification has been harder.

That said, the wars ARE employing hundreds of thousands of people that would otherwise be out of a job. You can't ignore that - just because the economy isn't doing well doesn't mean it's not still being stimulated. Sure, again, you could argue that money dumped into the economy would create jobs. That's true, but to a lesser extent because the employment would not be as directly correlated.

But I will agree when it drags on for years and the totals run into the trillions that it's probably becoming a net negative. And, of course, I've ignored the whole issue of long-run nets from deficit spending. All I'm trying to say is, with jobs in thin supply, I can understand politicians not being in a rush to dump hundreds of thousands more back into the labor pool.