spending and not wasting money on stupid purchases mean the same thing, btw.

also, i don’t grant at all that 100% of the money I spend stupidly is wasted. I get an overpriced pair of jeans, while some enterprising guy, who employs an otherwise underemployed man, reaps the benefit of my stupidity. Win-Win.

Not having to pay for another attack by the dirt bags is worth it.
How much did the nonresponse since 1979 cost?(:^(

…not having Saddam’s sons feeding people feet first into industrial shredders just to hear them scream longer? – Priceless!

I guess we should just forget about all the dead Iraqi citizens that were killed using that money right?

I’m not saying that Saddam didn’t do anything bad to his people, but that whole shedder story is fiction.

Rob astonishingly writes:

For another, we should be accurate about what the war in Iraq represents. We should ask, “Would you rather have $1,075 or 26,000,000+ Iraqis living in oppression under Saddam Hussein” or “Would you rather have $1,075 or Saddam Hussein still sponsoring suicide bombers in Israel?” Or even “Would you rather have $1,075 or Saddam Hussein still using misappropriated UN oil-for-food program to bribe his way out from under sanctions so that he could resume his WMD’s programs?” (…)I suspect that if an accurate cost/benefit analysis were done of the war in Iraq most Americans would be satisfied that they got their money’s worth.

Famine, Affluence, and Morality: by Peter Singer.

“As I write this, in November 1971, people are dying in East Bengal from lack of food, shelter, and medical care. The suffering and death that are occurring there now are not inevitable, not unavoidable in any fatalistic sense of the term. Constant poverty, a cyclone, and a civil war have turned at least nine million people into destitute refugees; nevertheless, it is not beyond the capacity of the richer nations to give enough assistance to reduce any further suffering to very small proportions. The decisions and actions of human beings can prevent this kind of suffering. Unfortunately, human beings have not made the necessary decisions. At the individual level, people have, with very few exceptions, not responded to the situation in any significant way. Generally speaking, people have not given large sums to relief funds; they have not written to their parliamentary representatives demanding increased government assistance; they have not demonstrated in the streets, held symbolic fasts, or done anything else directed toward providing the refugees with the means to satisfy their essential needs.

(…)My next point is this: if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it. By “without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance” I mean without causing anything else comparably bad to happen, or doing something that is wrong in itself, or failing to promote some moral good, comparable in significance to the bad thing that we can prevent. This principle seems almost as uncontroversial as the last one. It requires us only to prevent what is bad, and to promote what is good, and it requires this of us only when we can do it without sacrificing anything that is, from the moral point of view, comparably important. I could even, as far as the application of my argument to the Bengal emergency is concerned, qualify the point so as to make it: if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it. An application of this principle would be as follows: if I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, I ought to wade in and pull the child out. This will mean getting my clothes muddy, but this is insignificant, while the death of the child would presumably be a very bad thing.

(…)If my argument so far has been sound, neither our distance from a preventable evil nor the number of other people who, in respect to that evil, are in the same situation as we are, lessens our obligation to mitigate or prevent that evil. I shall therefore take as established the principle I asserted earlier. As I have already said, I need to assert it only in its qualified form: if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything else morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it.

The outcome of this argument is that our traditional moral categories are upset. The traditional distinction between duty and charity cannot be drawn, or at least, not in the place we normally draw it. Giving money to the Bengal Relief Fund is regarded as an act of charity in our society. The bodies which collect money are known as “charities.” These organizations see themselves in this way – if you send them a check, you will be thanked for your “generosity.” Because giving money is regarded as an act of charity, it is not thought that there is anything wrong with not giving. The charitable man may be praised, but the man who is not charitable is not condemned. People do not feel in any way ashamed or guilty about spending money on new clothes or a new car instead of giving it to famine relief. (Indeed, the alternative does not occur to them.) This way of looking at the matter cannot be justified. When we buy new clothes not to keep ourselves warm but to look “well-dressed” we are not providing for any important need. We would not be sacrificing anything significant if we were to continue to wear our old clothes, and give the money to famine relief. By doing so, we would be preventing another person from starving. It follows from what I have said earlier that we ought to give money away, rather than spend it on clothes which we do not need to keep us warm. To do so is not charitable, or generous. Nor is it the kind of act which philosophers and theologians have called “supererogatory” – an act which it would be good to do, but not wrong not to do. On the contrary, we ought to give the money away, and it is wrong not to do so.”

________________________________________

Are you going to apply your newfound utilitarianism fairly, Rob?

“”As I write this, in November 1971, people are dying in East Bengal from lack of food, shelter, and medical care.Wrong. They are dying because they don’t have an economic system that allows them to generate the prosperity that would enable them to deal with adversity. The suffering and death that are occurring there now are not inevitable, not unavoidable in any fatalistic sense of the term. Constant poverty, a cyclone, and a civil war have turned at least nine million people into destitute refugees; nevertheless, it is not beyond the capacity of the richer nations to give enough assistance to reduce any further suffering to very small proportions.”This is also untrue. The answer to poverty is not money, as our own “War on Poverty” has illustrated clearly. We have siphoned trillions of dollars out of the private sector on this colossal waste, and poverty is unchanged. The govt of Bengal made wrong choices in depriving its population from participating in a demand economy, with the resulting economic stagnation and misappropriation of resources. Charity is only good for first aid; long term, only a commitment to prosperity works.

Saddam was killing more of his own people per day, on average

The problem with this reasoning is that the average is ramped up by not-so-average occurances, such as the genocidal rampages against the Kurds. If we could’ve stopped Hussein from his more insane outbursts (vis-a-vis the Kurds, that’s what the no fly zone accomplished), that number would be drastically lower. Lower, I’d guess, than the current levels.

How about $2,150 each for those 50% of us in the US who actually pay their income taxes. Perhaps we should get to vote on this question and leave those non-producers out of it!

low recruitement

Horsefeathers! Prove your allegation.

probably more than a couple new Tim McVeigh’s being born in the Iraqi pressure cooker

Rrrright. Cuz, as we’ve all seen, Muslim fanatics really need a good reason to become terrorists. If only we’d left them alone, 9/11 never would have happened! Why is America so evil?

Speculative thinking on your part and indulgences in theory.

That’s a feature of foreign policy, not a bug.

Will: “Wow. Leave to the MSM to make a big deal of a mere 24 people tortured and murdered. Why do they hate America?”

Especially when you cherry-pick the bad parts to make your hate-filled case. You left out all the good parts, which is typical lying leftie disinformation. You are what you focus on. I don’t envy you one bit. Your hate-filled leftie mind just wants to turn everything bad, no matter what the cost, just to Get the President. You guys have nothing else.

Since we are in Iraq, and the questin, in whichever version, is rhetorical anyway, what’s the point?

Citizens are not being watched and disappeared by the govt on a daily basis.

True. Now they are being watched and disappeared by terrorists and rogue militias on a daily basis.

I think democratic governments usually do a better job of governing than murderous dictators.

Only if they are functioning and actually have control of the country. That has not yet occurred in Iraq; the government is propped up by our military occupation.

Of course Saddam was a danger to Iraqis. I never said otherwise. The point is, we’ve spent something like $12000 per Iraqi and we’ve yet to see conditions improve there. Meanwhile, the world seems like a more dangerous place than it was before Bush invaded.

And Will says “Bush is evil, America is evil, there is no place like dhimmitude, there is no place like dhimmitude!” and clicks his heels together and it is so. Now find some new lies, these are old and lame.

..it is still functioning, and not oppressing the people through totalitarian govt practices. Tell the truth.

A functioning government needs to do more than “not oppress”. It needs to protect the citizens and protect the country. The truth is that the Iraqi government is not governing the country; it is hiding in the green zone behind American soldiers.

Invasion is for the purpose of colonization. Tell the truth.

Ever hear of the “Invasion of Normandy”? Do you think the allies were trying to colonize France? You have a very strange concept of truth.

The problem with Bush is that he is both ignorant and arrogant. He doesn’t understand the Middle East. He thought changing the regime in Iraq would be like changing a lightbulb. It just doesn’t work that way. And he is so arrogant that it never occurred to him that he could be wrong, or that it might be helpful to listen to someone with a different point of view (like General Shinseki or his own state department).

…who wants to deny any credit to this administration for their tremendous accomplishments

Ok, I’ll bite. What are these supposed accomplishments you’re so happy about? Huge tax cuts for Paris Hilton? Hundreds of billions in deficit spending? Tax breaks for the oil companies while gas is at $3/gallon? Halliburton shares tripling since the start of the Iraq war? (gotta love those no bid contracts for Cheney’s pals!) Taking an extended vacation at Crawford instead of trying to protect us after receiving the warning, “Bin Laden determined to attack in US” as the title of his daily briefing? Giving up on getting Bin Laden? Preventing the US military from taking out Zarqawi before the war and then using Zarqawi as a bogus excuse to start the war?

Will: “A functioning government needs to do more than “not oppress”.You change the argument. First you say the govt isn’t functioning, now you complain it isn’t functioning perfectly. Typical lying leftie. When you lose, change the argument. It needs to protect the citizens and protect the country. The truth is that the Iraqi government is not governing the country; it is hiding in the green zone behind American soldiers.This is a lie. They just brought peace to a southern city this morning. Read the news.

Ever hear of the “Invasion of Normandy”?Yes. It was the same as us going into Iraq to rescue the Iraqis from a dictator, just like we went into France to rescue the French from a dictator. Is that how you meant it? I doubt it. Do you approve of this “invasion” as you do the invasion of France? If so, then you must appreciate what our President did. Do you think the allies were trying to colonize France? You have a very strange concept of truth.

The problem with Bush is that he is both ignorant and arrogant.That’s your problem with our President. You are out of power and throwing a tantrum about it. He doesn’t understand the Middle East.He understands that they understand superior force, and little else. He thought changing the regime in Iraq would be like changing a lightbulb.In your opinion. It doesn’t square with the facts. He actually said it would take a long time, and require commitment and effort. Tell the truth. It just doesn’t work that way. And he is so arrogant that it never occurred to him that he could be wrong,Because he was right. You are the arrogant one, since you speak in ignorance. or that it might be helpful to listen to someone with a different point of view (like General Shinseki or his own state department).

Ok, I’ll bite. What are these supposed accomplishments you’re so happy about? Huge tax cuts for Paris Hilton? Hundreds of billions in deficit spending? Tax breaks for the oil companies while gas is at $3/gallon? Halliburton shares tripling since the start of the Iraq war? (gotta love those no bid contracts for Cheney’s pals!) Taking an extended vacation at Crawford instead of trying to protect us after receiving the warning, “Bin Laden determined to attack in US” as the title of his daily briefing? Giving up on getting Bin Laden? Preventing the US military from taking out Zarqawi before the war and then using Zarqawi as a bogus excuse to start the war?Congratulations on your being able to parrot what you read on the leftie hate sites. We have a great economy, due to his tax rate cuts, we have deposed a brutal, murdering dictator who killed over half a million of his own people, and a country which has never had a constitutional govt in 5000 years now has one. That’s only a sliver of it. If you ever decide to become an American and support your country, let us know.

Will: “True. Now they are being watched and disappeared by terrorists and rogue militias on a daily basis.”

You really can’t tell the difference? Even if the numbers were comparable(and they aren’t), we now have a law enforcement problem instead of a dictator problem. You are so filled with hate for the President you are unable to see the reality of the situation. You have my pity.

But I guess their lives and my money are a small price to pay for Iraqi freedom.

The wellbeing of Iraqis is equally as important as the wellbeing of your friends and other American soldiers, right.
Ken writes:

I always find it strange that your liberals and leftists, who never met a bloated government program or entitlement they didn’t admire, put on the green eye shades and suddenly become scrupulous about spending when it comes to the military.

Whenever you’re wondering whether the liberals will support a specific policy, merely ask yourself: “Will it increase individual freedom?”

If the answer is yes, you can bet the Dems will oppose it.

Yeah, whatever.

So you’ll have us believe the ever-wise and impartial CATO Institute as they cite the even more wise and truthful Washington TIMES?

Even that is a cite from some organ that SunYung’s rag claims: ‘The NPP bills itself as a non-partisan, non-profit organization.’ I’m sorry, if you believe this, Senator Ted Stevens is on line two for you; he’d like to sell you a bridge to nowhere.

Let’s take the rather poor framing of the argument, particularly this rather galling: “Would you rather have $1,075 or Saddam Hussein still using misappropriated UN oil-for-food program to bribe his way out from under sanctions so that he could resume his WMD’s programs?” (although I will give you credit for not saying that he was in cahoots with Osama ’5 Years after killing nearly 3000 of your countrymen and I’m still free and very much alive’ Bin Laden.)

$318.5 billion is padded down; and even if it weren’t, that $318.5 billion does not take into account the money it would take to extricate our forces when they are done, aka combat operations are over, aka Mission Accomplished.

Ahem.

Picture this $318.5 billion, (or $1,075 per capita as you frame it) and consider it as a down payment for a very long and morally depraved car lease or mortgage our children’s children will finish paying for us.

So, to answer your question, Rob of North Dakota you can take that sum and quadruple it, and then you’d have a fraction of what I’d be willing to pay to have my friends back from that dusty hell-hole.

But I guess their lives and my money are a small price to pay for Iraqi freedom. Whateverthehellthat is. (especially now that 91% want us the heck out of there.)

Signed-
Bob from North Carolina

(and you Robs always wonder why Bobs are loved more.)

PS, reading this comment thread is kinda sad. So much pimple-anger. Everyone seems to be taking a page out of the accountability chapter in the Republican handbook.

Great deal. For $1075 (a very lowball estimate), we get civil war and anarchy in Iraq, with terrorists running wild and the Iraqi government hunkered down in the Green Zone. We get America’s reputation in the world, and especially in the Middle East, in tatters, badly damaged by reports of torture, rape, and murder committed by US troops (so much for winning the hearts and minds). We get both Iran and North Korea enboldened and strengthened. We get Bin Laden still at large and GWB says he doesn’t care. We get incompetent, underfunded homeland security and FEMA destroyed.

Remember, Saddam was not involved in 9/11 or al Qaeda. He did not have operational WMD. He was not a significant threat to the US, and we had UN inspectors on the ground with unfettered access to verify WMD compliance until GWB kicked them out to start his invasion.

What I meant to say (and said badly, if at all) was that we can’t really extrapolate out from the average killing, given that the average was so strongly affected by a handful of statistical outliers.

The real cost/benefit question is: would you rather have gone to war in Iraq of have that money allocated to other government programs?

jpe: “The problem with this reasoning is that the average is ramped up by not-so-average occurances, such as the genocidal rampages against the Kurds. If we could’ve stopped Hussein from his more insane outbursts (vis-a-vis the Kurds, that’s what the no fly zone accomplished), that number would be drastically lower. Lower, I’d guess, than the current levels.”

I’m not sure what your point is here. Is it that Saddam would have killed fewer people if he had killed fewer people? He killed the people he killed. It’s true that an average doesn’t say how many people he killed on any particular day, but it’s the same with the average deaths per day during the war. I compared one average with another, which is a proper comparison. And a revealing one, as well.

“Similarly, it was silly when people would take the death rate among American troops and claim that the war’s casualty rate is unacceptably high.”

I meant to say “death rate….during a month with unusually intense fighting.”

The $318 billion is only through the end of this fiscal year, ending September, but it’s unlikely that US troops will be out by then. Also, it does not include long term health care costs for Iraq War veterans. Also, since the war is paid for by loans, we’ll need to pay interest on the $318+ billion for the foreseeable future.

Yes, the elections have been a bright spot, but the violence has continued. For example, see http://www.juancole.com/2006/08/civil-war-violence-explodes-throughout.html

When you refer to the “MSN version of things”. Are you saying the reports of violence are factually incorrect or that they are correct but not significant (ie, this level of violence is acceptable)?

Isn’t it true that the Iraqi goverment is for the most part located within the green zone because it could not safely exist anywhere else?

jpe-Speculative thinking on your part and indulgences in theory.
You conveniently forget the similar but larger number of Shities to the south. Not to mention the fact that the no-fly zones did not stop Sadam’s death squads from walking or driving around.

Yes, if we could just have convinced Sadam to be a nice boy and stop killing all those bad people who were plotting to kill him. After all, he did get 99,8% of the vote!

Woof: Nice example. As I hope you know, we lost that battle, but won the war decisively. Good thinking!

Funny, Shel…the British reporters that reported it didn’t think so. Still waiting for CNN to discover the story…so I guess it didn’t happen!

I hardly see where agreeing with an elected President’s expenditure of tax dollars on a nationaly security mission in the middle east is in anyway comparable to the situation Singer is talking about.

You don’t? That $1,075 could have been ours, but (at least you) are perfectly willing to give it to the Iraqis.

Let’s rephrase your question:

“Would you rather give $1,075 or have 11 million children dying from preventable diseases each year?”

When we talk about Iraq, you say you’d rather give up the money. Do you continue this line of thought when talking about sub-Saharan Africa?

Good point, spaghetti.

Kevin, this Kurd I had a chance to interview seemed to think that things in Iraq were going pretty well too.