http://www.btselem.org/English/

It is not often that one gets to correct DD…

Or should that be “It is not often that one gets and correct DD”?

“The second criticism – which we admit – was that we only look at the costs, not the benefits. Now, we couldn’t see any benefits. From our point of view we weren’t sure what those were.”

Net costs is the right measure here if you want to talk about what we could have spent “the money” on if not for this war.

Here are some examples of “benefits” of the war: – We now have soldiers who are much more highly-trained for counterinsurgency. This training is worth something. – We have done a bunch of R&D, from which we will benefit in the future, even in the civilian technology sector. – Our dead soldiers will not collect medicare or social security benefits. (This is why cost-benefit analysis is grotesque when applied to a war; Stiglitz and Bilmes started it, and we must count this type of thing if we want to imagine what we could have spent “the money” on if not for the war; clearly any money spent saving sodiers’ lives after they are wounded is worth it no matter what this type of analysis says.) – The war has contributed to higher oil prices, resulting in some reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and likely spurring some additional R&D that will contribute to our post-oil future. – Some of the U.S. government spending on the war and its aftermath will come from taxes that would otherwise have been spent on positional goods by rich American individuals; such positional goods also have zero social value.

Also, looks like the cost of getting the Palestinian’s to “slope off and stop bothering the Israelis” is getting cheaper by the day, as they are slaughtered. At least this killing isn’t being completely ignored however. Well, not everywhere, anyway.

Lest anyone accuse me of anti-semitism, note that I favor a one-state system, with no laws respecting any religion, except to ban amplified muezzins,sharia and orthodox laws, including burkas, hibjabs, headscarves, purdah, and the like. Fat chance.

You might be right, but I’m not sure about “enormously”. Medicaid is a roughly $300 billion a year program.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid)
And Medicaid appears to be some 50% of total welfare spending.
(http://encarta.msn.com/media_461520381/u_s_welfare_spending.html)
I wouldn’t want to try and have to stand behind those numbers, they’re just the product of a couple of minutes googling.
But at $600 billion a year over five years, looks like the welfare spending is comparable to, rather than “enormously” lower than the $3 trillion cost of the war.

I think we should spend that much, right now in restitution. Plus another trillion for relocating (ethnic cleansing) the population into three states.

(Although 3 trillion sounds too high. Dunno how Mr. Stiglitz arrived at it but I think you should discount future costs VERY heavily, more than some cost-of-money-interest-rate adjustment, to reflect the uncertainty of the current course compared to the costs of counterfactual histories (i.e., we don’t invade, but things still suck).

“I’d like your fill all the intermediate steps in your deduction”

I know it will become a shock to you and most
of the readers of this blog but there has been a continual Jewish presence in the area for far longer than there has even been a Muslim religion.

The term “Jewish colonists” was first used by
the Muslim fanatics who, eventually, verbally
supported those who considered Jews as “life unworthy of life”.

And, in point of fact, they so supported that
point of view that they volunteered by the thousands to join units formed specifically to liquidate “unter-Menschen”.

Otto is one the one who used that term. His
professed point of view, then, is that Jews
are only allowed to live in certain “designated”
areas.

Which means to him that Jews cannot be considered
full “Human beings” because they do not have full human rights.

Because they are unworthy of life, Otto would
somehow magically transport all the Jews in Palestine – whatever their origin – to another
place.

His plan sounds eerily familiar to something that
happened in the first half of the last century.
You may want to see if there is about it here on
the internets.

Or – more sensibly – it would have funded a considerable payoff to the Jewish colonists in Palestine to slope off to the US or Europe and stop ‘bothering’ the native arab population.

Shame about those 850,000 Jews who were ethnically cleansed from Arab countries. As far you you are concerned they are life unworthy of life.

You are a sick, Jew hating fuck.

If most of the ‘extra’ cost comes from the first, this is a relatively sound figure I guess. But if most of it comes the second, it will rely heavily on the part of the higher cost attributed to the war, the estimates of its cost to the economy, etc. It would make the number a lot less comparable to the direct costs of building houses or paying teachers.

I would love to hear a speech that hammers on the cost issue. It’s $10 billion a month, for pete’s sake. Some politician should be able to stand up and say “Here’s what I’d do once we were out of Iraq. January – everyone gets a $150 check in the mail. February – $10 billion into food for impoverished children. March – another check! April – $10 billion research into alternative energy to make us oil-independent. May…” and so on.