The $3 Trillion War »
Posted By walden3 1 year, 8 months ago in NewsHow else might it been spent? After wildly lowballing the cost of the Iraq conflict at a mere $50 to $60 billion, the Bush administration has been concealing the full economic toll. The spending on military operations is merely the tip of a vast fiscal iceberg.
Read Full Story at vanityfair.com »
307 Views Share Story 59 Comments Report
Submitted By:
walden3
The war was over and the spirit was broken The hills were smokin' as the men withhdrew We stood on the cliffs Oh, and watched ...
Other Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 193 of 234 Comments (view all)
-
Neutral
walden31 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Just for fun I ran some numbers.
For the $3,000,000,000,000 that we will have spent on Iraq we could have purchased:
60,000 schools that cost $50,000,000 each, or
15,000 hospital that cost $200,000,000 each, or
paid the tuition for 30,000,000 kids at the cost of $100,000 , or
built 150,000 new bridges that cost $20,000,000 each, or
built 60,000,000 new miles of highway that cost $50,000 each, or
hired 37,500,000 teachers and pay them $80,000 a year, or
hire 30,000,000 cops that get paid $100,000 a year, or
built 15,000,000 new homes that cost $200,000 each, or
paid for 12,000,000 organ transplants that cost $250,000 each, or
get 272 BILLION orders of Moo Goo Gai Pan, or
bought every man, woman and child on the planet a 4Gig I-Pod and still have enough money left over to fill em all with music from the I-Tunes store.
Phew.
In the end I guess it all about priorities, huh?
Reply-
mntnman444Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned1 Reply
-
Neutral
cowboygrandpa1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
walden3:
Excellent. Though there will be the neocons disputing their war profiteering. If we stop the war we hurt their wallets.
How much is the blood of innocents worth these days? It was pretty cheap in Nam.
Still seems pretty cheap here. They pay the soldiers a little bit of nothing and destroy another country and the civilians for the gain of the few.
Wouldn't want to be them come judgement day. Going to be mighty hot and miserable.
Reply -
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The massive cost of this war is a justifiable reason why Conservatives should not have wanted it. The problem is that having spent so much on creating an Iraqi democracy, it seems a shame to let it fail. I said when the war started that the extent of corruption in Iraq coupled with a complete lack of historcal experience in running an actual functioning democratic government stacked the deck against success. I hate it when those on the Left argue that this is a war started by Conservatives because President Bush isn't one. At this point, I would like to see a scaling back of forces but only after properly securing each province and staying long enough to ensure that they stay that way when we leave.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Charlson1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"...Defense Department accounting is done on a "cash" basis, which logs only what the government is actually spending day by day and ignores future obligations. In the case of the Iraq war, the future obligations are huge. They include the cost of replacing military equipment, which is being used up at 6 to 10 times the peacetime rate. They also include the cost of providing health care and disability payments for our returning troops. These costs will be especially high because of our improved ability to keep even the most horribly wounded soldiers alive."
Long term liability and obligations weren't even on Bush's radar. His administration is so short sighted on almost everything it does. The only long term thinking Bush does is centered on his legacy and that is a lost cause. He will be remembered as the President who could have stopped Osama bin Ladin but chose not too. And, oh yes, bankrupting our nation.
Reply -
-
Neutral
earthlingerer1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We're LESS safe.
The WORLD has lost the respect and goodwill we ONCE had (remember when the iranians sympathized with us?)
We've lost so MANY of our freedoms.
We live CONSTANTLY snooped and spied upon by our own government.
The US Constitution has been critically insulted beyond recovery.
We've become a nation of citizens complicit in war crimes and torture.
But we have nothing except insolence and failure to show for it.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
donald511 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
...don't just blame Congress, these fools convinced enough fools to reelect them! Calling good people unpatriotic after 911 shamed a lot of folks to do and vote wrong! Scaring people to death helped too!
Remember it was a corrupt Repug Controlled Congress, the "do Nothing" 109th Congress!
Look at Endo!
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
LOL
This is really a thinly disguised effort to bash Bush. When the Twin Towers were downed and Bush declared war on terror everybody thought that was great. He said it would take more years than he would be in office. Demoshrills came up with the lie of Bush lied. They screamed it to everybody and like Hitler's concept that if you tell a lie long enough and loud enough people will believe it.
Who are we fighting now? Terrorists.
Who is winning now? We are.
Since they can't say we need to get out because we can't win they are trying to go this route. Part of the problem is they are including the whole military budget in this. The men are getting salaries whether they are in a war zone or at home. The only difference is the extra combat pay. We have an ongoing material purchases that happen whether the units are in a war zone or not. The extra costs are replacements for those destroyed in action. Extra costs are for transportation there and back.
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why do I have a feeling that the extra costs of having the army in a war zone does not add up to $3 trillion. The liars accusing Bush of lying are lying again.
Then they accuse the government of not having good accounting practices. Guess who wrote most of those laws. They go way back to the Democrat controlled congress. So if you don't like the accounting take it up with the Democrats and see if they want to change what they put in place back then.
Reply -
Neutral
jordan111 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is really a thinly disguised effort to bash Bush. When the Twin Towers were downed and Bush declared war on terror everybody thought that was greatd>>>
WTH are you talking about? No one needs to disguise bashing bush. He's given enough ammunition to bash him for the next century! The man is an abject failure, a liar, a war monger, a corporatist, & as far as I'm concerned guilty of treason. Oh, and let me say this again; IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.
Reply -
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: Retracted by user
-
Neutral
djn3nunez31 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Iraq did not attack the Twin Towers nor did they support those who did. Saddam did not allow al Queda to operate in his country.
Funny that you would accuse the democrats of being Nazi like when, in fact, it is the Bush Administration that was caught red-handed repeatedly lying.
Truth is Bush lied about going after al Queda anywhere in the world didn't he? He refused to cross the Pakistan border and give chase. He also lied about WMD in Iraq and the Iraqi ties to al Queada. He used these lies to drag America into the unnecessary, costly, and blunderous Iraq Invasion.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
1-2-Oscar1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The exact "cost" of this war will never be known--too many costs are routinely assigned to other parts of the budget, and the effect on the nation's economy is incalculable. Some can argue that three billion dollars is too high a figure to assign, some can reasonably argue that it is too low.
Resentment is magnified by the growing realization that the invasion of Iraq was a strategic mistake. The people resent wasting money, but they resent it even more if they perceive that the stated objectives are not being achieved and cannot be.
(cont)
Reply-
Neutral
1-2-Oscar1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Compounding the administration's political problems here at home is the growing perception that this administration has not been truthful about the reasons for invading Iraq, the scope of the American objective there (if there IS a definable objective), as well as the actual costs of the war. Failure to adequately plan and budget has led to an apparently endless series of "supplemental" appropriations, many of which are attached to other government expenditures. Together with this administration's unwillingness to cut expenditures in any other area, the consequence is a damaging budget deficit which threatens the underpinnings of our national economy--and thus the livelihood of nearly every American citizen. Because we have not been asked to sacrifice, because we have deluded ourselves into thinking we could spend unlimited amounts with little or no consequences, we are sure to end up paying far more than anyone ever imagined.
(cont)
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
People are going to be arguing forever about whether it was correct to start this war and the cost
We need to pay close attention to what the candidates are saying about the CURRENT situation and where they would go from here
Do you really find Obama's solution palatable?
Obama answered a question by Tim Russert, who posed the hypothetical situation of a return to Iraq by al-Qaeda after a US withdrawal. Obama said the U.S. would have to return in that case.
Since al-Qaeda members are in Iraq now, does that mean Obama would stay? He certainly indicated he would send the troops BACK
He also made an interesting comment about Pakistan:
Clinton criticized Obama for saying he would attack al Qaeda targets in Pakistan, even without the approval of the Pakistani government. Last summer Obama made headlines when he said, "if we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
Is that something you would support?
Reply-
Neutral
1-2-Oscar1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I certainly cannot speak for Senator Obama, but I can comment on your questions.
"Do you really find Obama's solution palatable?"
Yes. Withdrawal of American forces during the next two years is certainly a feasible objective.
"Since al-Qaeda members are in Iraq now, does that mean Obama would stay?"
No, it does not. It means that Obama wants to make the Iraqi government responsible for the security of that nation. That is a reasonable expectation, and was supposedly the objective of whatever "nation-building" exercise we have been involved in for the past five years.
It is true that al-Qaeda personnel are now in Iraq. They are also in England, Spain, Germany, and the United States. If the international effort is ever to be successful, it will be successful insofar as it allows each nation to defend itself in cooperation with the others. If Iraq (or England) needs help in ridding itself of these criminals, we should be willing to go back in and help.
Reply -
Neutral
IcCaRus1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"if we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
Is that something you would support?"
ABSOLUTELY!! part of the reason that Al Queda is on the rebound is that they are operating unchecked. Pakistan as an ally is a JOKE!
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
Bovver1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Like so many issues this is one that is fruitless to debate here for the simple reason that the faux-cons are committed to Dubya's wars (without even knowing how many are going on at the moment) with a manic theological fervor so that reason simply doesn't matter. These are people that think Iraqi women wore burkas when the Ba'athists were running things, that OBL and Hussein were best buddies, that Iraqi nukes got shipped off to Syria,the NIE was written by libs that hate the US, water boarding isn't torture, Gazans deserve to be starved to death and the U.S. is hated because it's free. You simply can't debate with people that support the narco/terrorist/Islamic state of Kosovo and are convinced that the U.S. would never support terrorism for the simple reason that they are cranks actively interested in avoiding reality. Does anyone really think these fantasists can be persuaded that the Iraqi misadventure costs $3 trillion and that money could have been better spent else where?
Reply-
Neutral
1-2-Oscar1 year, 8 months ago
-
-
Neutral
canadianrancher571 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
One number I would like to see in the estimates is the profits to the companies that supply everything for the military, there has likely been some really good years for these companies at the expense of the American public.
Can everyone say Military Industrial Complex.
Reply-
Neutral
walden31 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
At your service.
"...a draft report by the Government's General Accounting Office leaked out after GAO staffers became fearful that its findings might be watered down. The report's conclusion: producing arms for the Pentagon is far more rewarding than is commonly realized."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,917...
"Two large military contractors, the Lockheed Martin Corporation and the Northrop Grumman Corporation, reported higher fourth-quarter profits on Thursday...The two companies both forecast higher profit for 2008. The results match the higher profit posted Wednesday by a rival, General Dynamics."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/business/25ar...
"The S&P's Aerospace & Defense Index has gained 26% since early March. Nevertheless, Chao believes the sector remains undervalued by historical standards."
http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_26/b3687017...
Reply
-
-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: Retracted by user7 Replies
-
Neutral
Bovver1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well Oscar given that the neo-cons have as much to do with conservatism as Rob Zombie has to do with high cinema calling them faux-cons is realistic. Given that they actively deny reality as I mentioned in several examples I provided they've proven themselves fantasists. Those of us in the reality based community understand that the 19% that still support Bush and carry the faux-con standard are actively avoiding reason and as a result it's stupid to pretend that exchanging ideas with the likes of Zimm or BoBo is possible or that what they have to say is something worthy of consideration.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
1-2-Oscar1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am willful in the sense that I am unwilling to start a "discussion" with name calling. I have said that, "I have seen no evidence that what YOU have to say is worthy of consideration." That is surely NOT because I am ignorant--rather it is because you have said nothing so far of any import, and nothing that thus deserved consideration.
If you want to get into some sort of "critical thinking" competition, I'm ready and able, but you'll have to do more than just rattle off insults.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Bovver1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To sum up. I pointed out why the faux-cons are not to be taken seriously. If you had a cogent basis for differing with me you have would have offered it. You failed to do so. Instead you insulted me. I in turn correctly pointed out that you are willfully ignorant and incapable of critical thinking based upon your unreasoning response and belligerence. The truth clearly hurts you more then you stand demonstrating the soundness of my initial post on the matter.
Reply -
Neutral
Bovver1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Iraqi war provides an example of of how those labeled conservatives are nothing of the sort. A genuine conservative heeds something Burke called "prejudice and prescription" which entails appreciation of communal wisdom which in turn produces what is commonly called culture. Given that the foundational principles of American governance was a minium state we should note that foreign wars of occupation demand vast public expenditures which in turn require burdensome taxes and/or reckless deficit spending and an increase in state powers. One can pursue the Straussian dream or permanent wars for democratic liberation or one can aspire to the vision of the founding fathers. The faux-cons have clearly chosen the former. In doing so they have ignored the cautious approach to societal change demanded by "prejudice and prescription" and in doing have squandered rather then conserved the values they claim to hold.
Reply-
mntnman444Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned1 Reply
-
-
-
-
OnionHeadComment removed: Retracted by user
-
Neutral
Bovver1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Good point mntnman444. Nation building is based upon the notion that societies can be created by the wisdom of some government which presumes itself to be morally beyond reproach and possessing wisdom far in excess the indigenous peoples they have subjugated. The disregard shown by the faux-cons for the Burkian notion of societal evolution and the folly of mere individuals reforming society to meet abstract notions of "freedom and democracy" demonstrates that they are merely radical liberals (in the Burkian sense) that have successfully marketed themselves to jingoistic slobs eager for wars of conquest.
Reply -
Neutral
Bovver1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You've proven once again that thinking isn't your forte Oscar. The transitory allegiances of Alcibiades and the popularity he enjoyed had nothing to do with the communion between the living and their ancestors which is a cornerstone of traditionalistic thought. You clearly know neither the lingo nor the substance of conservatism.
Reply-
Neutral
1-2-Oscar1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Alcibiades' allegiances were not the point, but the "communal wisdom" which put the city's fate into his untrustworthy hands. In electing him to command, Athenians certainly believed that they were voting for continuity of tradition. Burke's appeal to tradition, as expressed in "Reflections on the Revolution in France," was essentially reactionary, and no more valid than the modern computer nerd's dependence on the "the wisdom of the masses."
But you still have not addressed the point I made in my first response--that you are not going to get a reasoned dialogue when you begin by calling people names. But perhaps a reasoned dialogue was never your objective.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Bovver1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Acting with prejudice and prescription doesn't mean merely that you believe you are acting in accordance with tradition but rather it's a method of thinking and acting. You missed that because you don't know what you're talking about and if you read Bonald's discussion of how Alcibiades provides a lesson in how appeals to tradition can be used to destroy it you'd at least have something intelligible to add. I could debate the matter were you qualified but it's not exactly on topic and you've show cased your ignorance enough at this juncture.
As to you original point about dialog I've described my position and rather then address it you insulted me and I acted as called for. That you can't accept that or at least demonstrate the errors in my perception of the faux-cons proves you're not worthy of my responding to you.
Reply -
Neutral
Bovver1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your mis-use of the term "reactionary" and your obvious disdain for Burke simply demonstrates again that you lack the ability to address these matters in ways worthy of my consideration. In any case, your rejection of traditionalism says nothing about the cost of the Iraqi war nor anything at all about my contention that the faux-con gestalt is far removed from conservatism.
Reply-
Neutral
willottica1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If I might interject... I think part of the problem here is your continued use of the term faux-cons, which Oscar is taking as name-calling, rather than a criticism of those who claim to be conservative but don't act that way.
Oscar, I believe the term is meant to separate those who would spend frivolously on wars from those who are true conservatives, not as a derogatory name for all Republicans.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
not2needy1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You know what i don't understand?
We are spending all this money on all this high tech equipment in this war, and yet....... we're having a tough time against people who are using a lot of simple home made bombs and such. Why is that?
The money spent on this war could have set up the most effective health care system in the world! It leaves me speechless at the gross waste.
Reply -
-
More News
LA Times
A story of shock, chaos and bravery unfolds in Ft. Hood shooting
Healthcare bill clears parliamentary hurdle in House
Afghanistan government accuses foreign officials of interfering
Unemployment rate rises above 10% ; Obama signs jobless benefit extension
Jason Rodriguez : Shooting at downtown Orlando office building leaves 5 hurt, 1 dead
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.