Re: Iraq war 'caused slowdown in the US'

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Lee Dryburgh" <dryburghl () gmail com>
Date: February 28, 2008 11:00:28 AM EST
To: dave () farber net
Cc: ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: Re: [IP] Iraq war 'caused slowdown in the US'

Aside from the financial cost, the human cost is staggering. The
Bloomberg report from sometime back claimed 655,000 lives had been
lost:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/oct/11/iraq.iraq

What worries me more, is the tens of thousands of "terrorists" that
the US and it's Allies (eh, Britain) have "brought" into Iraq and
"grown". This fertile ground for learning to bomb-make and so forth
will not be dormant following a pull out. I mean these people ain't
going home to open falafel stands. Instead it means a training ground
was setup on mass and many of these people will find their way over to
Western cities or to other Western targets. The invasion of Iraq may
cost up to 3 trillion, there may be greater than half a billion dead
and it's greatly increased global insecurity. It's also made Iran far
more powerful. But what can I say - GWB - was voted in not once but
twice!

I fear I could get classed as a "leftie" - but my political persuasion
is right of center.

Regards

Lee

On 28/02/2008, David Farber <dave () farber net> wrote:
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: dewayne () warpspeed com (Dewayne Hendricks)
> Date: February 28, 2008 9:13:47 AM EST
> To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <xyzzy () warpspeed com>
> Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Iraq war 'caused slowdown in the US'
>
> Iraq war 'caused slowdown in the US'
>
> Peter Wilson, Europe correspondent | February 28, 2008
> <http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23286149-2703,00.html
> >
>
> THE Iraq war has cost the US 50-60 times more than the Bush
> administration predicted and was a central cause of the sub-prime
> banking crisis threatening the world economy, according to Nobel  
> Prize-
> winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.
>
> The former World Bank vice-president yesterday said the war had, so
> far, cost the US something like $US3trillion ($3.3 trillion) compared
> with the $US50-$US60-billion predicted in 2003.
>
> Australia also faced a real bill much greater than the $2.2billion in
> military spending reported last week by Australian Defence Force chief
> Angus Houston, Professor Stiglitz said, pointing to higher oil prices
> and other indirect costs of the wars.
>
> Professor Stiglitz told the Chatham House think tank in London that
> the Bush White House was currently estimating the cost of the war at
> about $US500 billion, but that figure massively understated things
> such as the medical and welfare costs of US military servicemen.
>
> The war was now the second-most expensive in US history after World
> War II and the second-longest after Vietnam, he said.
>
> The spending on Iraq was a hidden cause of the current credit crunch
> because the US central bank responded to the massive financial drain
> of the war by flooding the American economy with cheap credit.
>
> "The regulators were looking the other way and money was being lent to
> anybody this side of a life-support system," he said.
>
> That led to a housing bubble and a consumption boom, and the fallout
> was plunging the US economy into recession and saddling the next US
> president with the biggest budget deficit in history, he said.
>
> Professor Stiglitz, an academic at the Columbia Business School and a
> former economic adviser to president Bill Clinton, said a further
> $US500 billion was going to be spent on the fighting in the next two
> years and that could have been used more effectively to improve the
> security and quality of life of Americans and the rest of the world.
>
> The money being spent on the war each week would be enough to wipe out
> illiteracy around the world, he said.
>
> Just a few days' funding would be enough to provide health insurance
> for US children who were not covered, he said.
>
> The public had been encouraged by the White House to ignore the costs
> of the war because of the belief that the war would somehow pay for
> itself or be paid for by Iraqi oil or US allies.
>
> "When the Bush administration went to war in Iraq it obviously didn't
> focus very much on the cost. Larry Lindsey, the chief economic
> adviser, said the cost was going to be between $US100billion and
> $US200 billion - and for that slight moment of quasi-honesty he was
> fired.
>
> "(Then defence secretary Donald) Rumsfeld responded and said
> 'baloney', and the number the administration came up with was $US50 to
> $US60 billion. We have calculated that the cost was more like $US3
> trillion.
>
> "Three trillion is a very conservative number, the true costs are
> likely to be much larger than that."
>
> [snip]
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com


--
Skype + Gmail + LinkedIn +
Facebook + Twitter + Delicious
= leedryburgh


-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com