Muscatine

Well, look here:

Here's something that has some relevance to cost/benefit of regime change in Iraq:

http://www.nber.org/papers/w12092

by the way, one of the authors is a ''Davis''!!
I was interested in the summary/conclusion. If you purchase the entire paper, Joe, please share it with us!

Oil production

I really like the part about the quota on the oil, as it sounds like they are with OPEC and are going to stick it to us.
Memory tells me that happened before with another Country we saved.
Naw that could not happen because they really like us.

You make a better case Bobsdad


When you argue the benefit will be realized later. But what is the very best that can be gained?

You're quite wrong Bobsdad

You said this:

Oh, I think there are..

Nov 29, 2007
some obvious similarities, especially with Hitler's Germany.
But, the point is not that I was trying to ''equate'' Germany and Japan to Iraq, but rather I was pointing out the fallicy of Lilsmom's argument about ''at what cost''?
That same ''at what cost'' argument was tried during WW2.
There is no supportable logical argument substantiated, yet, that the costs of Iraq will not in the long run proof ''worth it''.

-By Bobsdad (bobsdad)



1st, bringing that war up does not prove anyone wrong, show any error in logic. In fact, it is you who have faulty logic. Germany had a real shot at ruling the world and Saddam had nothing. So, no you have not shown her in error.

Hitler was engaged at the time in aggressive acts with other countries. Saddam was not. Hitler had a formitable army. Saddam did not. Hitler had real and capable allies. Saddam did not. Hitler declared war on us, formally and in a meaningful way. Saddam did not and could not.

Do not confuse Saddam with terrorism or those who attacked us. He wasn't part of that. Nor does our invading Iraq effect that to the positive. Quite the opposite actually.