New: theory of conspiracy theories:

Originally posted by sonhouse
Meanwhile, back at the conspiracy.....

Hey, it was Valentines Day...I was just putting it out there. :'( I was the one trying to be serious, but I was forced to defend against the sarcastic remarks made to me. By all means, conspire on good sir!

Originally posted by joe shmo
Hey, it was Valentines Day...I was just putting it out there. :'( I was the one trying to be serious, but I was forced to defend against the sarcastic remarks made to me. By all means, conspire on good sir!

When someone puts out such conspiracy theories, I say, who gains? What kind of political gain would the US make by killing 3000 of its own people? Justify going into Iraq? What?

Originally posted by sonhouse
When someone puts out such conspiracy theories, I say, who gains? What kind of political gain would the US make by killing 3000 of its own people? Justify going into Iraq? What?

For some people the notion that thousands of evil people could pull off something extremely complicated and risky is more plausible than the notion that two dozen evil people could pull off something fairly straightforward.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

How often do you actually solve complicated problems in real life?( That is what my company pays me to do every single day). Why should I make unnecessary assumptions about motive ( the motive could be a million different reasons, the obvious approach to avoid utilizing Occam's Razor)? However, the collapse of a "tall building" due to "normal office fires" ( something that has never happened before that time, and hasn't happened since) is the most scientifically measurable place to begin (not the convoluted and corrupted political process).

Originally posted by sonhouse
When someone puts out such conspiracy theories, I say, who gains? What kind of political gain would the US make by killing 3000 of its own people? Justify going into Iraq? What?

If you are absolutely not going to let the fact go that I don't really care about motive at this time go. Then my intuition tells me War would be a reasonable place to begin on that end. Several others in this thread pointed that out already.

Originally posted by joe shmo
If you are absolutely not going to let the fact go that I don't really care about motive at this time go. Then my intuition tells me War would be a reasonable place to begin on that end. Several others in this thread pointed that out already.

Bear in mind that going to war is one of the most insanely expensive things a government can do. The cost of WTC I, II and VII as well as the damage to the Pentagon was in the billions. I find it difficult to believe that a government would start an active conspiracy which would cost it quite that much money.

My earlier post was to point out that there is more than no evidence for a conspiracy of inaction, this is not the same as endorsing the theory. It's far more likely that the FBI simply didn't believe their informant. I do not think even a conspiracy of inaction is likely, in fact it is far more likely that had they believed the information they had they would have tried to prevent the attack.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I find it difficult to believe that a government would start an active conspiracy which would cost it quite that much money.

Governments are not people with budgets and luxuries to spend on. They are not strongly motivated to save money. (the US spending on the military is ample proof of this).
Spending by a government is actually often seen as a positive thing economically as it can create jobs. Wars are often seen as positive by governments because they employ soldiers (creates jobs) and they use a lot of other resources which creates jobs and most importantly they take the focus off local politics.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Governments are not people with budgets and luxuries to spend on. They are not strongly motivated to save money. (the US spending on the military is ample proof of this).
Spending by a government is actually often seen as a positive thing economically as it can create jobs. Wars are often seen as positive by governments because they employ soldiers (crea ...[text shortened]... other resources which creates jobs and most importantly they take the focus off local politics.

Amazingly soldiers have to be paid even when they're not at war. Governments buy military equipment anyway, it all needs upgrading after a while. BAe Systems know their order book for the next couple of decades. What costs extra is solving the logistical problem and firing things like cruise missiles that cost of the order of a million each. It all just increases spending with no lasting benefit to the economy. Basically it diverts resources away from investment. In Britain the Iraq war generated additional political discord without diverting much attention from other issues. Budgetary control is a big issue in elections in Britain. I really don't think they go to war expecting it to be cost effective.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Amazingly soldiers have to be paid even when they're not at war.

I am fairly certain that the US and other countries expanded the number of soldiers as a result of the wars in the middle east.

Governments buy military equipment anyway, it all needs upgrading after a while.
Nevertheless US military spending increased dramatically due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What costs extra is solving the logistical problem and firing things like cruise missiles that cost of the order of a million each.
Its a lot more than that. A lot of third party 'security companies' and consultants and many more were involved in Iraq and Afghanistan and had to be paid.

It all just increases spending with no lasting benefit to the economy.
The problem with an election cycle is that politicians do not think long term. Many economic strategies used in the US do not have lasting benefits and quite obviously so, but both politicians and even economists tend to promote them.

In Britain the Iraq war generated additional political discord without diverting much attention from other issues.
What happened and what politicians hoped would happen are two different things. I am fairly sure the UK got involved in the war in Iraq at least in part to try and divert attention away from domestic problems. The fact that they failed does not change that.

I really don't think they go to war expecting it to be cost effective.
Yet they go to war. Why is that?
Also Britain and the US are quite different in the way they run their economies and the effect spending on war has on the economy. Is Britain's war industry local or do they import? Did British arms manufacturers get a significant boost from the Iraq war?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am fairly certain that the US and other countries expanded the number of soldiers as a result of the wars in the middle east.

[b]Governments buy military equipment anyway, it all needs upgrading after a while.
Nevertheless US military spending increased dramatically due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What costs extra is solving the ...[text shortened]... cal or do they import? Did British arms manufacturers get a significant boost from the Iraq war?

Cruise missiles do cost a mil and a half a shot but there are other versions called smart weapons that do much the same job but a much shorter range so you have to be a lot closer to your target but that said, the smart weapon clocks in under 30K V 1500K. So you get a lot more bang for the buck. literally. They can do 50 smart weapon strikes for the price of one cruise.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am fairly certain that the US and other countries expanded the number of soldiers as a result of the wars in the middle east.

[b]Governments buy military equipment anyway, it all needs upgrading after a while.
Nevertheless US military spending increased dramatically due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What costs extra is solving the ...[text shortened]... cal or do they import? Did British arms manufacturers get a significant boost from the Iraq war?

Where we get military equipment from is itself political. I haven't done a breakdown, but I think the bulk is made in Britain, certainly the warships and fighters are (the out-of-service F4 is a notable exception, but everyone bought that). A recent import is the Boeing RC-135W Rivet Joint as the Nimrod project had overrun (cancelling Nimrod programs is a Conservative favourite move), they also import the Hercules transport aircraft, and the Boeing Chinook. I don't know how much of it is built here under licence. The Lightening F34-B, if it ever comes on line, is a multi-national project. Occasionally the Americans buy our stuff, most famously the Harrier. Clearly this is not an exhaustive list.

Just a point, and I realise this is going back a bit, but the major cause of the American War of Independence was taxation by the British who were trying to recoup the losses from winning the Seven Years War.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am fairly certain that the US and other countries expanded the number of soldiers as a result of the wars in the middle east.

[b]Governments buy military equipment anyway, it all needs upgrading after a while.
Nevertheless US military spending increased dramatically due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What costs extra is solving the ...[text shortened]... cal or do they import? Did British arms manufacturers get a significant boost from the Iraq war?

"I really don't think they go to war expecting it to be cost effective.
Yet they go to war. Why is that?"

There has to be unseen intrinsic value, which must exceed the purely economic aspects to justify it...power and control are a priceless, and the only "real thing" of any value. You can only own as much of the world as you can adequately defend, its really just a game of chess.

Originally posted by joe shmo
"[b]I really don't think they go to war expecting it to be cost effective.
Yet they go to war. Why is that?"

There has to be unseen intrinsic value, which must exceed the purely economic aspects to justify it...power and control are a priceless, and the only "real thing" of any value. You can only own as much of the world as you can adequately defend, its really just a game of chess.[/b]

Not a game of chess, more like the game of Go. The Chinese in the South China sea is one such Go-like move.