5 ms·

Iraq's bonds are now rated "nearly on par" with California's

24 points by cwan 17y ago

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
startuprules 17y ago
No worries; both will be bailed out by Bernanke's printing press. Not to mention Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Michigan, Florida .....
- jacquesm 17y ago
  How do you see Bernanke saving Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain ? Did they suddenly become US states ?
  - startuprules 17y ago
    IMF
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      Dominique Strauss-Kahn is the managing director of the IMF, not Ben Bernanke, he is the Federal Reserve Chairman and alternate governor to the IMF. Bernanke has nothing whatsoever to do with the internal affairs of the EU.
- jsz0 17y ago
  The Iraqi war price tag is very likely going to exceed $1T so arguably they already got their payout. Unlike the private sector bailouts, which are being paid back and in fact turning a profit in some cases, tax payers probably won't be seeing much in return from the money spent in Iraq.
  - mahmud 17y ago
    Why should the American tax payer expect a dime from the Iraqis? They're lucky if they can let this pass without reparations. In war, victims of illegal foreign invasions are not required to reimburse the aggressor.
    - sgrove 17y ago
      Well, that makes sense, but it's not always how things play out. Especially if you're not in a position to order others to play fair: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_Rebellion#War_reparations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_Rebellion#War_reparations
jcnnghm 17y ago
It'll be interesting to see what happens if the oil money flows to the people in Iraq. Strategically, it would be a very wise move on the part of the US, as it would assist in shoring up relations with the region. If for their entire lives they've been told that the United States is the Great Satan, then the US invades, lets them kill Saddam, and makes everyone that's left rich in the process, it may reverse some of that. So far this year, Iraq is safer for US servicemen than where I am today, Baltimore. (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/blog/2010/01/man_pleads_guilty_in_murder_of.html http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/blog/2010/01/man_...) The unpopular decisions made by the Bush administration seem to be paying off.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  If you make your sample small enough you will always be able to say that. A one month period is not long enough to make sweeping statements like that. To suggest that Iraq is safer for US servicemen than Baltimore you'd have to look at a period long enough to include your 'anomaly', which by the way was written in January. And you'd have to qualify the slayings as combat, which they clearly were not, if you'd include non-combat deaths from Iraq it would look quite different. http://militarytimes.com/valor/ http://militarytimes.com/valor/ shows that if you take that up to now (that's only a bit under two months later) that it no longer is true even if you were to qualify those deaths as combat.
  - mnbvgfhjk 17y ago
    Since the start of the war in Iraq, deaths (in action) of US servicemen have been lower than the preceding decade. Training is actually more dangerous than war these days! It's a little bit worse if you include suicides.
  - jcnnghm 17y ago
    How about a three month period then. So far this year there have been 36 homicides in Baltimore. This is actually a record low because of the six feet of snow that have been dumped on the city this year, another record. In Iraq there have been 16 military fatalities, all US troops. 6 of those military fatalities were combat related. If that's not good enough for you, let's take a look at all of 2009. In Iraq in 2009 there were 150 total military fatalities, 149 of which were US troops. In Baltimore, there were 238 homicides. Of those military fatalities, I count 75 combat deaths. No matter how you slice it or dice it, Baltimore city is more dangerous for US citizens than Iraq is. It's worth noting that Baltimore isn't a combat zone, and the people being killed aren't issued body armor, assault weapons or armored vehicles to defend themselves.
fjabre 17y ago
Title is link bait. They don't even mention CA until the end. Also kind of a cheap shot comparison since it's really apples and oranges.. Sure, if it stabilizes Iraq would obviously see a lot of economic growth over the next decade but that's kind of a no-brainer. The country is in ruins so any economic growth would be exponential for it..

24 points by cwan 17y ago

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

No worries; both will be bailed out by Bernanke's printing press. Not to mention Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Michigan, Florida .....

jacquesm 17y ago
How do you see Bernanke saving Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain ? Did they suddenly become US states ?
- startuprules 17y ago
  IMF
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    Dominique Strauss-Kahn is the managing director of the IMF, not Ben Bernanke, he is the Federal Reserve Chairman and alternate governor to the IMF. Bernanke has nothing whatsoever to do with the internal affairs of the EU.
jsz0 17y ago
The Iraqi war price tag is very likely going to exceed $1T so arguably they already got their payout. Unlike the private sector bailouts, which are being paid back and in fact turning a profit in some cases, tax payers probably won't be seeing much in return from the money spent in Iraq.
- mahmud 17y ago
  Why should the American tax payer expect a dime from the Iraqis? They're lucky if they can let this pass without reparations. In war, victims of illegal foreign invasions are not required to reimburse the aggressor.
  - sgrove 17y ago
    Well, that makes sense, but it's not always how things play out. Especially if you're not in a position to order others to play fair: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_Rebellion#War_reparations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_Rebellion#War_reparations

jcnnghm 17y ago

It'll be interesting to see what happens if the oil money flows to the people in Iraq. Strategically, it would be a very wise move on the part of the US, as it would assist in shoring up relations with the region. If for their entire lives they've been told that the United States is the Great Satan, then the US invades, lets them kill Saddam, and makes everyone that's left rich in the process, it may reverse some of that. So far this year, Iraq is safer for US servicemen than where I am today, Baltimore. (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/blog/2010/01/man_pleads_guilty_in_murder_of.html http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/blog/2010/01/man_...) The unpopular decisions made by the Bush administration seem to be paying off.

jacquesm 17y ago
If you make your sample small enough you will always be able to say that. A one month period is not long enough to make sweeping statements like that. To suggest that Iraq is safer for US servicemen than Baltimore you'd have to look at a period long enough to include your 'anomaly', which by the way was written in January. And you'd have to qualify the slayings as combat, which they clearly were not, if you'd include non-combat deaths from Iraq it would look quite different. http://militarytimes.com/valor/ http://militarytimes.com/valor/ shows that if you take that up to now (that's only a bit under two months later) that it no longer is true even if you were to qualify those deaths as combat.
- mnbvgfhjk 17y ago
  Since the start of the war in Iraq, deaths (in action) of US servicemen have been lower than the preceding decade. Training is actually more dangerous than war these days! It's a little bit worse if you include suicides.
- jcnnghm 17y ago
  How about a three month period then. So far this year there have been 36 homicides in Baltimore. This is actually a record low because of the six feet of snow that have been dumped on the city this year, another record. In Iraq there have been 16 military fatalities, all US troops. 6 of those military fatalities were combat related. If that's not good enough for you, let's take a look at all of 2009. In Iraq in 2009 there were 150 total military fatalities, 149 of which were US troops. In Baltimore, there were 238 homicides. Of those military fatalities, I count 75 combat deaths. No matter how you slice it or dice it, Baltimore city is more dangerous for US citizens than Iraq is. It's worth noting that Baltimore isn't a combat zone, and the people being killed aren't issued body armor, assault weapons or armored vehicles to defend themselves.

fjabre 17y ago

Title is link bait. They don't even mention CA until the end. Also kind of a cheap shot comparison since it's really apples and oranges.. Sure, if it stabilizes Iraq would obviously see a lot of economic growth over the next decade but that's kind of a no-brainer. The country is in ruins so any economic growth would be exponential for it..