The issues: McCain on Iraq

[wildcats forever]

The first in a series over the next several days (or weeks). How do you see each plan working (or not working)?

Because there is some considerable amount of text I'll split this into two threads, starting with McCain.

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/fdeb03a7-30b0-4ece-8e34-4c7ea83f11d8.htm
Strategy for Victory in Iraq

The Importance of Succeeding

John McCain believes it is strategically and morally essential for the United States to support the Government of Iraq to become capable of governing itself and safeguarding its people. He strongly disagrees with those who advocate withdrawing American troops before that has occurred.

It would be a grave mistake to leave before Al Qaeda in Iraq is defeated and before a competent, trained, and capable Iraqi security force is in place and operating effectively. We must help the Government of Iraq battle those who provoke sectarian tensions and promote a civil war that could destabilize the Middle East. Iraq must not become a failed state, a haven for terrorists, or a pawn of Iran. These likely consequences of America's failure in Iraq almost certainly would either require us to return or draw us into a wider and far costlier war.

The best way to secure long-term peace and security is to establish a stable, prosperous, and democratic state in Iraq that poses no threat to its neighbors and contributes to the defeat of terrorists. When Iraqi forces can safeguard their own country, American troops can return home.

Support the Successful Counterinsurgency Strategy

John McCain has been a leading advocate of the “surge” and the counterinsurgency strategy carried out by General David Petraeus. At the end of 2006, four years of a badly conceived military strategy that concentrated American troops on large bases brought us near to the point of no return. Sectarian violence in Iraq was spiraling out of control. Al Qaeda in Iraq was on the offensive. Entire provinces were under extremists’ control and were deemed all but lost. At that critical moment, John McCain supported sending reinforcements to Iraq to implement a classic counterinsurgency strategy of securing the population.

That strategy has paid off. From June 2007 through March 2008, sectarian and ethnic violence in Iraq was reduced by 90 percent. Civilian deaths and deaths of coalition forces fell by 70 percent. This has opened the way for a return to something that approaches normal political and economic life for the average Iraqi. Political reconciliation is occurring across Iraq at the local and provincial grassroots level. Sunni and Shi'a chased from their homes by terrorist and sectarian violence are returning. The "Sons of Iraq" and Awakening movements, where former Sunni insurgents have now joined in the fight against Al Qaeda, continue to grow.

Those gains would be lost if we were to follow the policy advocated by Senator Barack Obama to withdraw most of our troops and leave behind only a small “strike force” to battle terrorists. That is, in essence, the same strategy of withdrawing from Iraq’s streets that failed in 2006. John McCain advocates continuing the successful counterinsurgency strategy that began in 2007.

Push for Political Reconciliation and Good Government

Thanks to the success of the surge, Iraq's political order is evolving in positive and hopeful ways. Four out of the six laws cited as benchmarks by the U.S. have been passed by the Iraqi legislature. A law on amnesty and a law rolling back some of the harsher restrictions against former employees of the Iraqi government have made it possible for Iraqis to move toward genuine reconciliation. The legislature has devolved greater power to local and provincial authorities, where much of the real work of rebuilding Iraq is taking place.

More progress is necessary. The government must improve its ability to serve all Iraqis. A key test for the Iraqi government will be finding jobs in the security services and the civilian sector for the “Sons of Iraq” who have risked so much to battle terrorists.

Iraq will conduct two landmark elections in the near future – one for provincial governments in late 2008 and the other for the national government in 2009. John McCain believes we should welcome a larger United Nations role in supporting the elections. The key condition for successful elections is for American troops to continue to work with brave Iraqis to allow the voting to take place in relative freedom and security. Iraqis need to know that the U.S. will not abandon them, but will continue to press their politicians to show the necessary leadership to help develop their country.

Get Iraq's Economy Back on its Feet

John McCain believes that economic progress is essential to sustaining security gains in Iraq. Markets that were once silent and deserted have come back to life in many areas, but high unemployment rates continue to fuel criminal and insurgent violence. To move young men away from the attractions of well-funded extremists, we need a vibrant, growing Iraqi economy. The Iraqi government can jump-start this process by using a portion of its budget surplus to employ Iraqis in infrastructure projects and in restoring basic services.

The international community should bolster proven microfinance programs to spur local-level entrepreneurship throughout the country. Iraq's Arab neighbors, in particular, should promote regional stability by directly investing the fruits of their oil exports in Iraq. As these efforts begin to take hold in Iraq, the private sector, as always, will create the jobs and propel the growth that will end reliance on outside aid. Iraq’s government needs support to better deliver basic services—clean water, garbage collection, abundant electricity, and, above all, a basic level of security—that create a climate where the Iraqi economy creation can flourish.

Call for International Pressure on Syria and Iran

Syria and Iran have aided and abetted the violence in Iraq for too long. Syria has refused to crack down on Iraqi insurgents and foreign terrorists operating within its territory. Iran has been providing the most extreme and violent Shia militias with training, weapons, and technology that kill American and Iraqi troops. American military spokesmen have also said there is evidence that Iran has provided aid to Sunni insurgents.

The answer is not unconditional dialogues with these two dictatorships from a position of weakness. The answer is for the international community to apply real pressure to Syria and Iran to change their behavior. The United States must also bolster its regional military posture to make clear to Iran our determination to protect our forces and deter Iranian intervention.

Level with the American People

John McCain believes it is essential to be honest with the American people about the opportunities and risks that lie ahead. The American people deserve the truth from their leaders. They deserve a candid assessment of the progress made in the last year, of the serious difficulties that remain, and of the grave consequences of a reckless and irresponsible withdrawal.

Many Americans have given their lives so that America does not suffer the worst consequences of failure in Iraq. Doing the right thing in the heat of a political campaign is not always easy. But it is necessary.

John McCain on the Road Ahead

“I do not want to keep our troops in Iraq a minute longer than necessary to secure our interests there. Our goal is an Iraq that can stand on its own as a democratic ally and a responsible force for peace in its neighborhood. Our goal is an Iraq that no longer needs American troops. And I believe we can achieve that goal, perhaps sooner than many imagine. But I do not believe that anyone should make promises as a candidate for President that they cannot keep if elected. To promise a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, regardless of the calamitous consequences to the Iraqi people, our most vital interests, and the future of the Middle East, is the height of irresponsibility. It is a failure of leadership. “

“I know the pain war causes. I understand the frustration caused by our mistakes in this war. And I regret sincerely the additional sacrifices imposed on the brave Americans who defend us. But I also know the toll a lost war takes on an army and on our country's security. By giving General Petraeus and the men and women he has the honor to command the time and support necessary to succeed in Iraq we have before us a hard road. But it is the right road. It is necessary and just. Those who disregard the unmistakable progress we have made in the last year and the terrible consequences that would ensue were we to abandon our responsibilities in Iraq have chosen another road. It may appear to be the easier course of action, but it is a much more reckless one, and it does them no credit even if it gives them an advantage in the next election.” –John McCain

See next thread for Obama's plan.

[eakephas]

:thumbsup:

[BANJAXED]

:thumbsup:

Like you said in the other thread for Obama: McCain's surge tactic IS working. This seems to be the best course of action IMO.

[wildcats forever]

Unlike Obama's website plan, at least there is enough detail to comment on (for me). The first item that concerns me here is the stated presence of al qaeda in Iraq. While the presence of our military has probably drawn some al qaeda attention, aren't they really based in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

It's interesting to note McCain compares Obamas plan to Bush's failures when addressing troop withdrawel and the success of the surge. Doesn't part of the surge involve paying insurgents to not fire upon our troops, and isn't failure easy to predict when payments cease? I don't see a successful end maintaining that strategy ever. Calling for a central government (that we have failed miserable in creating) for "all Iraqi citizens" while they are mired in a revolution that has a long history is proof of us being in way over our heads. The effort we have put forth has seriously impaired our military's ability to respond to anything else. These are only a few aspects of the war that trouble me the most.

Whatever the economy in Iraq was before our occupation, I agree establishing a process that puts the people on the path of self-sufficiency is required but let's do that as part of an international effort, which will be a step in restoring some lost respect in the world community.

McCain's call for Iran and Syria to change their behavior sounds dangerously close for a desire to systematically convert the world to our way of thinking, perpetuating the sins of colonization we can no longer afford, if even viewed only from a pragmatic perspective - setting aside the philosophical/moral inclinations. Another complex issue but my core belief is we are failing when using military action to solve problems where dialogue and respect for indigenous societies should prevail.

The rest of what I read seemed to painfully state the obvious and some parts were patronizing at best.

[wildcats forever]

Like you said in the other thread for Obama: McCain's surge tactic IS working. This seems to be the best course of action IMO.

Nice try but that is not what I said: http://boards.bengals.com/showthread.php?t=21121

I said we shouldn't leave without restoration, not that the surge is working.

[eakephas]

Nice try but that is not what I said: http://boards.bengals.com/showthread.php?t=21121

I said we shouldn't leave without restoration, not that the surge is working.

I said the surge was working, though.

[BANJAXED]

Nice try but that is not what I said: http://boards.bengals.com/showthread.php?t=21121

I said we shouldn't leave without restoration, not that the surge is working.

Nice try?

note: I didn't repsond to your post bud now did I?

[wildcats forever]

Nice try?

note: I didn't repsond to your post bud now did I?

My bad bud.....so sorry! I'm on surge overload this morning <_<

[BANJAXED]

My bad bud.....so sorry! I'm on surge overload this morning <_<

it's all good - try to relax! its almost the weekend (if you're like me and working of course)

[tbone77]

Syria and Iran have aided and abetted the violence in Iraq for too long. Syria has refused to crack down on Iraqi insurgents and foreign terrorists operating within its territory. Iran has been providing the most extreme and violent Shia militias with training, weapons, and technology that kill American and Iraqi troops. American military spokesmen have also said there is evidence that Iran has provided aid to Sunni insurgents.



The U.S. has also aided and abetted violence in the Middle East and Asia for too long, so maybe we are not the right country to bring peace over there...just a thought :ninja:

But you won't learn about this in your American Pageant history book or watching CNN. Almost everyone else in the world seems to know about it (except Americans oddly).

Miscommunication + ignorance + racism + arrogance + fear + military industrial complex = preemptive war

The military industrial complex in the U.S. is almost richer than the rest of the world's military industrial complex combined. Here is the projected spending for 2008 military.

http://www.globalissues.org/i/military/country-distribution-2008.png

Accoring to http://money.aol.com/tax/where-your-tax-dollars-go?photo=2 you can see where U.S. income taxes are spent and how much is spent on military and war.
42.2 cents out of every federal income tax dollar went toward Military expenses. Current Military and war spending used 28.7 cents, interest on Military debt was 10 cents, and Veterans' benefits were 3.5 cents out of every federal income tax dollar.

Is it really necessary and good to spend so much income tax on pre-emptive wars? Does this war spending abroad have any impact on the economy? We can argue about it until we are blue in the face but any empire that spends this much on military is unsustainable. McCain doesn't seem to recognize this fact. Yes we broke it now we need to fix it, but I don't think McCain has the right plan. He wants to "level with the American people" but I honestly don't believe that he understands the reality of the situation.

[Whatever]

Hate to say it,but we are long past the point of no return in Iraq. To simply pull out now would be a waste of the billions we sunk into it and the lives of the troops we lost there. At this point,we would be sadly better off in seeing it through,and the Iraqi people would definately be better off. It stinks,and it's not popular,but you can't throw that much money at a problem and not get a return on your investment.

[tbone77]

Hate to say it,but we are long past the point of no return in Iraq. To simply pull out now would be a waste of the billions we sunk into it and the lives of the troops we lost there. At this point,we would be sadly better off in seeing it through,and the Iraqi people would definately be better off. It stinks,and it's not popular,but you can't throw that much money at a problem and not get a return on your investment.

This war has been very profitable both politically and financially for certain corporations, lobbyists, and politicians. They've already gotten a great ROI. Checkout these stocks to give you and idea what a killing people are making since the start of the Iraq blunder. Make sure you click on "5 yr" in these stock windows: Raytheon (http://finance.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:RTN), DynCorp, KBR, Halliburton (http://finance.google.com/finance?q=halliburton&hl=en&meta=hl%3Den), Lockheed, et al on the NYSE....now that's some return on your investment right there :thumbsup:

If I had stock at Raytheon, KBR, etc. I would definitely vote for McCain. Yea more war would be money in the bank.

[Whatever]

This war has been very profitable both politically and financially for certain corporations, lobbyists, and politicians. They've already gotten a great ROI. Checkout these stocks to give you and idea what a killing people are making since the start of the Iraq blunder. Make sure you click on "5 yr" in these stock windows: Raytheon (http://finance.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:RTN), DynCorp, KBR, Halliburton (http://finance.google.com/finance?q=halliburton&hl=en&meta=hl%3Den), Lockheed, et al on the NYSE....now that's some return on your investment right there :thumbsup:

If I had stock at Raytheon, KBR, etc. I would definitely vote for McCain. Yea more war would be money in the bank.

Dude,seriously. No investor worth their salt is going to dump $ in Lockheed just because there's a "war" going in Iraq. However,with the changeover in planes over the past few years,plus numerous other weapons being replaced and deployed,it would only make sense that the companies that got the fat contracts to produce those weapons for years and years would see their stocks go up,as they basically have guaranteed income until those contracts run out. Where's your big stock jumps when the US declared war on Afghanistan in '01? Or the 1st Iraq war? Millitary tech becomes obsolete,and needs to be replaced. When that happens,big contracts come up. You think Lockheed's stock price is rising because of the massive amounts of planes that they're having to replace in Iraq because they're being shot down? Oh,wait,when was the last time a plane got shot down over there. Exactly. The only people that believe that long-term investors are going to dump money in a defense company because of a glorified policing action are the ones that'll believe just anything liberals tell them about "evil" coorporations.

[tbone77]

What do you think investment banks do????

Wake up and smell the Benjamins.

[Whatever]

What do you think investment banks do????

Wake up and smell the Benjamins.

I've taken classes on investing. Nobody worth their salt does it that way. Nobody goes and buys a bunch of Hallmark or American Greetings stock around Christmastime,then sells it in January. And the fact that these stocks you're quoting didn't appreciate during the war in Afghanistan and Iraq 1 blows complete holes in this argument. Sorry,tbone,that argument just doesn't hold water.

[tbone77]

I've taken classes on investing. Nobody worth their salt does it that way. Nobody goes and buys a bunch of Hallmark or American Greetings stock around Christmastime,then sells it in January.

Whatever you are being very naive. U.S. defense contracts are the biggest contracts in the world. Look at the business reports and some investment group websites to see how speculators make a nice profit in times of preemptive war.

http://deloite.org/dtt/section_node/0,1042,sid%253D121613,00.html Aerospace & Defense
Deloitte & Touche Corporate Finance
we also have numerous relationships with private equity investors who remain interested in deploying their capital in the aerospace and defense sector.

http://www.allbusiness.com/government/government-bodies-offices/7376289-1.html Stock Strategist: Three Defense Firms Rising Above the Tide.
Mar. 20--With ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, naturally one might expect that escalations in military spending would lift all defense companies, in the sense of "a rising tide lifts all boats." However, some companies are not only rising with the tide but surfing a tidal wave of demand.

Attention is often directed to the largest companies in the headlines, such as General Dynamics, Halliburton, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, or Northrop Grumman. Billion-dollar contracts for fighter planes, ships, missiles, and troop service...

http://www.allbusiness.com/government/government-bodies-offices/7531267-1.html Atten-tion! Florida military contractors are flush for now, but all bets are off if war breaks...
Military money is flowing in Florida. Lockheed Martin's winning bid to build the military's next-generation fighter will bring $1 billion to central Florida in the next decade. The Army's simulation center brings more than $1 billion a year. Don't forget to factor in all the military base spending and the volume of cash that could pour from the post-Sept. 11 "homeland security" faucet.

Justifiably, Gov. Jeb Bush, on an October tour of Northrop Grumman's Melbourne facility, cheered the defense industry for shoring up Florida's economy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/12/AR2006021200730.html Carlyle Shows It's Still Tops In Defense
Investment in Qinetiq Pays Off Handsomely
When British government officials decided to spin off the country's secret Ministry of Defense lab, their aim was to make the resulting company, Qinetiq PLC, into a lean-and-mean player in the commercial technology world.

But that was before District-based investment firm Carlyle Group hitched Qinetiq's wagon to the exploding U.S. defense market two years ago, turning a group of former British civil servants into the latest defense technology darling. Qinetiq went public on Friday in Britain, and the initial results indicate that Carlyle earned more than half a billion dollars from an initial investment of about $73 million, an eightfold return in three years that further cements its reputation as a savvy trader in the defense world...

Carlyle has deep roots in the defense sector, dating to the days when former president George H.W. Bush, former British prime minister John Major and former U.S. defense secretary Frank Carlucci held senior advisory or executive positions. But in recent years, Carlyle has been mostly selling its defense assets and expanding into telecommunications, media, real estate and, with the recent purchase of Dunkin' Donuts Inc., the consumer retail trade.

Don't even get me started on the revolving door between DoD and the defense contractors. That's legal corruption. And most of the chickenhawks who sold us this fiasco in Iraq (with a price tag of ~2% of the actual cost) had business ties or investment ties with the big defense contractors who are making a killing over there today. That's the way our government works. Same thing happens with big pharma and FDA....wall street and the SEC and CFTC....big media and the FCC. It's legal corruption. It's one of the biggest problems we face today
http://www.informationliberation.com/files/3-4-Revolving-Door.jpgIMO.

[tbone77]

And the fact that these stocks you're quoting didn't appreciate during the war in Afghanistan and Iraq 1 blows complete holes in this argument. Sorry,tbone,that argument just doesn't hold water.

:rotf: We spend at least 3 or 4 times as much money on Iraq 2 as we do on Afghanistan. Iraq 1 is not even in the same ballpark as Iraq 2.

[Whatever]

Whatever you are being very naive. U.S. defense contracts are the biggest contracts in the world. Look at the business reports and some investment group websites to see how speculators make a nice profit in times of preemptive war.

http://deloite.org/dtt/section_node/0,1042,sid%253D121613,00.html Aerospace & Defense
Deloitte & Touche Corporate Finance


http://www.allbusiness.com/government/government-bodies-offices/7376289-1.html Stock Strategist: Three Defense Firms Rising Above the Tide.


http://www.allbusiness.com/government/government-bodies-offices/7531267-1.html Atten-tion! Florida military contractors are flush for now, but all bets are off if war breaks...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/12/AR2006021200730.html Carlyle Shows It's Still Tops In Defense
Investment in Qinetiq Pays Off Handsomely


Don't even get me started on the revolving door between DoD and the defense contractors. That's legal corruption. And most of the chickenhawks who sold us this fiasco in Iraq (with a price tag of ~2% of the actual cost) had business ties or investment ties with the big defense contractors who are making a killing over there today. That's the way our government works. Same thing happens with big pharma and FDA....wall street and the SEC and CFTC....big media and the FCC. It's legal corruption. It's one of the biggest problems we face today
http://www.informationliberation.com/files/3-4-Revolving-Door.jpgIMO.

I'm being naive? You do realise that those defense contracts are still there whether there's a war going on or not? I'm sure that there are some investors out that capitalized on that fact. Truth is,the Clintons slashed our defense and intelligence budgets. That put us behind. Now,there's a big price tag in catching up for what they put off.

[Whatever]

:rotf: We spend at least 3 or 4 times as much money on Iraq 2 as we do on Afghanistan. Iraq 1 is not even in the same ballpark as Iraq 2.

Does that take inflation into account? After all,gas was around a $1 a gallon at the time of Iraq 1. You don't think that increased fuel costs account for a lot the spending over there,or do you still think that all goes to those evil defense contractor coorporations? And I've already addressed the neccessary updating to our millitary which is another big chunk of your cost. We are having to pay now for all the budget cuts the Clinton administration put on our intellignece and millitary. Doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure this all out if you stop and think for yourself for a minute.

And you're still dancing around the point. Where was the stock increases in these other wars? Even if the amount going into the war was less,there should still be an appreciable jump,and it's not there. The facts simply don't back up your conspiracy theory. Sorry.

[xxlt]

Does that take inflation into account? After all,gas was around a $1 a gallon at the time of Iraq 1. You don't think that increased fuel costs account for a lot the spending over there,or do you still think that all goes to those evil defense contractor coorporations? And I've already addressed the neccessary updating to our millitary which is another big chunk of your cost. We are having to pay now for all the budget cuts the Clinton administration put on our intellignece and millitary. Doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure this all out if you stop and think for yourself for a minute.

And you're still dancing around the point. Where was the stock increases in these other wars? Even if the amount going into the war was less,there should still be an appreciable jump,and it's not there. The facts simply don't back up your conspiracy theory. Sorry.

Interesting dispute. Not to discredit whatever's knowledge of investment, but what tbone is saying makes more sense to me. I think the scale of the wars and the length of post war occupation is one thing whatever is not considering. It would be like comparing WWI to Vietnam.

I also read an interesting essay called "Bush can't lose with Clinton's Army." It pointed out that in spite of the claims that Clinton gutted the military that Bush, Rumsfeld ("six days, six weeks, I doubt six months") et al were confident that Iraq would fall quickly and it did. What no casual observer foresaw was the occupation lasting this long and the "eternal" war on terrorism. But the Bush folk did foresee it along with dollar signs for their buddies and themselves if they were still invested in certain companies (right Richard Cheney?). I don't think the lack of market spikes (for DOD contractors) in the previous wars proves tbone's argument wrong. I think the spikes in this war and occupation prove it right. War profiteering has been more successful in this incarnation, as I see it. But it is always successful to a degree. And I would argue, with many of our country's legendary conservatives and military folk, that it is also always treasonous.

[Whatever]

Interesting dispute. Not to discredit whatever's knowledge of investment, but what tbone is saying makes more sense to me. I think the scale of the wars and the length of post war occupation is one thing whatever is not considering. It would be like comparing WWI to Vietnam.

I also read an interesting essay called "Bush can't lose with Clinton's Army." It pointed out that in spite of the claims that Clinton gutted the military that Bush, Rumsfeld ("six days, six weeks, I doubt six months") et al were confident that Iraq would fall quickly and it did. What no casual observer foresaw was the occupation lasting this long and the "eternal" war on terrorism. But the Bush folk did foresee it along with dollar signs for their buddies and themselves if they were still invested in certain companies (right Richard Cheney?). I don't think the lack of market spikes (for DOD contractors) in the previous wars proves tbone's argument wrong. I think the spikes in this war and occupation prove it right. War profiteering has been more successful in this incarnation, as I see it. But it is always successful to a degree. And I would argue, with many of our country's legendary conservatives and military folk, that it is also always treasonous.

Good insights.

I'm no Wall Street wiz or anything,but here's why if I were looking for places to invest my $,I wouldn't go with these defense contractors,if what tbone is arguing about the war driving these stock prices up,is true((which I don't feel it is,I'm just playing along for the sake of argument).

This war is unpopular with most Americans. One of your two main contenders for the Presidancy is talking about pulling out. If the US pulls out,and if you if you own these stocks,if what tbone is saying is true,doesn't it also stand to reason that your stocks will fall also? That's a big risk with Obama being a strong candidate and many people being disillusioned with the Republican party. So,why wouldn't you get out now? Whenever you sell stock,you pay taxes to the US government. It doesn't matter what you bought the stock at,you pay taxes on the amount you sold it for. Unless you can sell that stock for appreciably higher than what you paid for it,you lose money out of your pocket because of taxes. Are you seriously going to risk your money on an election result,when if Obama wins,everybody else is going to be trying to bail out of that company and you lose your shirt? That's not good investing,in my eyes. It also doesn't make sense that the US would just sit there and occupy a country forever just to keep those stock prices up,because they would reasonably fall back down again afterwards. If that's true,why did we pull out of Germany?

However,if the reason for those inflating stocks is what I'm saying,guaranteed contracts for updating/upgrading millitary equipment,then these companies are sound investments,because they have guaranteed income for the length of contract,making them very safe investments.

Besides which,the whole point kinda stinks of another red herring by the Dems? Wasn't this war originally,in their eyes,to drive down oil prices? That's what they said. Now,it's to subisdise defense contractors after oil costs have skyrocketed? If it still is about the oil,then how does it benefit McCain to stay in Iraq? He's the guy pushing hard for alternative energy sources to get the US off of foreign oil. Staying in Iraq wouldn't seem to be part of his agenda,if that's the case. Tbone's points just don't add up to me.

[tbone77]

I'm being naive?

Yes you were being naive.

You do realise that those defense contracts are still there whether there's a war going on or not?

The U.S. DoD contracts are obviously much bigger during war (as are the international sales of weapons).

And keep in mind that Iraq is largely a mercenary war as well. You may scoff at the profits being made, but it is impossible to ignore that many people and corporations are making a killing in this botched war with no end in sight...

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1599682,00.html Victims of an Outsourced War
Of all the changes in tactics that have made the war in Iraq distinct from prior U.S. engagements, perhaps no shift is as profound as the massive hiring--and varied deployment--of private contractors in combat zones. There are an estimated 100,000 contractors in Iraq, compared with a fraction of that the last time the U.S. was fighting there, and they are not working in just mess halls. They are bodyguards for vips, snipers in the field, translators and interrogators. They man checkpoints at Army bases and run supply convoys through the streets of Iraq. As with much of the occupation, the emergence of guns for hire among this contractor group was not part of the original plan. The number of contractors swelled, the insurgency grew, and the military was unable to provide adequate security for all of the civilian workforce. So companies like Blackwater began offering those services--at a high price--in the military's stead.

[wildcats forever]

The U.S. has also aided and abetted violence in the Middle East and Asia for too long, so maybe we are not the right country to bring peace over there...just a thought :ninja:

But you won't learn about this in your American Pageant history book or watching CNN. Almost everyone else in the world seems to know about it (except Americans oddly).

Miscommunication + ignorance + racism + arrogance + fear + military industrial complex = preemptive war

The military industrial complex in the U.S. is almost richer than the rest of the world's military industrial complex combined. Here is the projected spending for 2008 military.

http://www.globalissues.org/i/military/country-distribution-2008.png

Accoring to http://money.aol.com/tax/where-your-tax-dollars-go?photo=2 you can see where U.S. income taxes are spent and how much is spent on military and war.


Is it really necessary and good to spend so much income tax on pre-emptive wars? Does this war spending abroad have any impact on the economy? We can argue about it until we are blue in the face but any empire that spends this much on military is unsustainable. McCain doesn't seem to recognize this fact. Yes we broke it now we need to fix it, but I don't think McCain has the right plan. He wants to "level with the American people" but I honestly don't believe that he understands the reality of the situation.

You do realize those words are from McCain's website - not mine, don't you?

[xxlt]

Good insights.

I'm no Wall Street wiz or anything,but here's why if I were looking for places to invest my $,I wouldn't go with these defense contractors,if what tbone is arguing about the war driving these stock prices up,is true((which I don't feel it is,I'm just playing along for the sake of argument).

This war is unpopular with most Americans. One of your two main contenders for the Presidancy is talking about pulling out. If the US pulls out,and if you if you own these stocks,if what tbone is saying is true,doesn't it also stand to reason that your stocks will fall also? That's a big risk with Obama being a strong candidate and many people being disillusioned with the Republican party. So,why wouldn't you get out now? Whenever you sell stock,you pay taxes to the US government. It doesn't matter what you bought the stock at,you pay taxes on the amount you sold it for. Unless you can sell that stock for appreciably higher than what you paid for it,you lose money out of your pocket because of taxes. Are you seriously going to risk your money on an election result,when if Obama wins,everybody else is going to be trying to bail out of that company and you lose your shirt? That's not good investing,in my eyes. It also doesn't make sense that the US would just sit there and occupy a country forever just to keep those stock prices up,because they would reasonably fall back down again afterwards. If that's true,why did we pull out of Germany?

However,if the reason for those inflating stocks is what I'm saying,guaranteed contracts for updating/upgrading millitary equipment,then these companies are sound investments,because they have guaranteed income for the length of contract,making them very safe investments.

Besides which,the whole point kinda stinks of another red herring by the Dems? Wasn't this war originally,in their eyes,to drive down oil prices? That's what they said. Now,it's to subisdise defense contractors after oil costs have skyrocketed? If it still is about the oil,then how does it benefit McCain to stay in Iraq? He's the guy pushing hard for alternative energy sources to get the US off of foreign oil. Staying in Iraq wouldn't seem to be part of his agenda,if that's the case. Tbone's points just don't add up to me.

I don't think t is saying these military contractors just became good investments. I think he is saying they are a good investment that is very good at present. So, taking your concern about the election into account I would not sell off everything, but I might do what the experts call a "reevaluation" of my position. It seems the shrewdest people would cut their position a little right now, while the stocks are at or near a peak - making a tidy profit if you've held the stocks for years. Then, if the war does start to wind down and short sighted people start to dump the stock it would tumble (right?) and you could buy back what you sold (or more) at a lower price. Eventually it would recover because, as you note, long term the companies do well. But I know less about stocks than the guy on parole (and not for insider trading) driving an ice cream truck, so I'd be interested to see what some of the folk who work in the investment industry say about this. I think Eatonfan is one, but he hasn't been in this thread yet.

With regard to the part in bold - I have heard little from J Mac about that. Obama has a plan to make a major investment in developing alternative fuels.( I would think a trained ferret would be smart enough to raise fuel economy standards to the level they are in Europe, although I've heard neither candidate say that.) J Mac's only "plan" I've heard of is the joke of pulling off the federal gas tax for the summer. As Obama noted the other day, the best that would do is put about $30 month back in your pocket. That is only if you drive a gas guzzler. Well yippee! Sign me up for some geritol and a ride on the J Mac elephant!!!

[Whatever]

I don't think t is saying these military contractors just became good investments. I think he is saying they are a good investment that is very good at present. So, taking your concern about the election into account I would not sell off everything, but I might do what the experts call a "reevaluation" of my position. It seems the shrewdest people would cut their position a little right now, while the stocks are at or near a peak - making a tidy profit if you've held the stocks for years. Then, if the war does start to wind down and short sighted people start to dump the stock it would tumble (right?) and you could buy back what you sold (or more) at a lower price. Eventually it would recover because, as you note, long term the companies do well. But I know less about stocks than the guy on parole (and not for insider trading) driving an ice cream truck, so I'd be interested to see what some of the folk who work in the investment industry say about this. I think Eatonfan is one, but he hasn't been in this thread yet.

With regard to the part in bold - I have heard little from J Mac about that. Obama has a plan to make a major investment in developing alternative fuels.( I would think a trained ferret would be smart enough to raise fuel economy standards to the level they are in Europe, although I've heard neither candidate say that.) J Mac's only "plan" I've heard of is the joke of pulling off the federal gas tax for the summer. As Obama noted the other day, the best that would do is put about $30 month back in your pocket. That is only if you drive a gas guzzler. Well yippee! Sign me up for some geritol and a ride on the J Mac elephant!!!

Actually,alternative energy is a big part of McCain's platform. His goal is to have the US off of foreign oil in 5 years,although a lot of experts say that's not realistic. At least it gets the ball rolling. He says that he will turn alternative fuels into a "Manhattan Project" to make this happen. He is also championing nuclear power as an alternative fuel source,citing the safety records of France(85% of France's power comes from nuclear plants) and nuclear powered Naval vessels.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_Energy_+_Oil.htm

He did do a big flip-flop on ethanol,saying that when oil was $15/barrel,it didn't make sense,but once it hit $60/barrel,it did. Plus,I'm a lot more confident that McCain can pull this off,than Obama. After all,Obama's big project is universal health care,and that one's going to be a massive headache to pull off,if it even can be.

[xxlt]

Well, McCain must not have been talking alt. fuels up when I checked his website about a year ago because I didn't see it. And, he is a guy who admits that he understands little about economics. While I admire that sort of candor, it indicates to me that the "experience" argument is over rated.

[barryllium]

Well, McCain must not have been talking alt. fuels up when I checked his website about a year ago because I didn't see it. And, he is a guy who admits that he understands little about economics. While I admire that sort of candor, it indicates to me that the "experience" argument is over rated.

McCain didn't say that. But he did. But he didn't. But he did... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/24/mccains-memory-gets-shak_n_83179.html