This story is archived
The $3 Trillion War »
Posted by: walden3 1 year, 10 months agoHow 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 »
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 ...
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 234
-
walden3
Feb. 28, 2008, 9:21 a.m.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?
-
-
Charlson
Feb. 28, 2008, 9:44 a.m."...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.
-
Bkumm
Feb. 28, 2008, 9:54 a.m.In economics, it is called opportunity cost. This war we are fighting for our "security" will, in the end, cost us far, far more than just the dollar figures.
-
earthlingerer
Feb. 28, 2008, 10:25 a.m.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!
-
berkeley
Feb. 28, 2008, 10:28 a.m.bush/cheney deserve most of the credit for this debacle, but without the idiots in congress as cheerleaders and supporters, nothing on this scale could have happened.
they too shall have their reward.
-
Endoscopy
Feb. 28, 2008, 10:49 a.m.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.
-
1-2-Oscar
Feb. 28, 2008, 11:30 a.m.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)
-
nostalgia
Feb. 28, 2008, 11:41 a.m.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?
-
rdy2rckComment has been removed: Hard Banned
-
Bovver
Feb. 28, 2008, 12:40 p.m.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?
-
canadianrancher57
Feb. 28, 2008, 12:47 p.m.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.
-
AtheismIsRealityComment has been removed: Retracted by user
-
Bovver
Feb. 28, 2008, 1:29 p.m.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.
-
Bovver
Feb. 28, 2008, 2:43 p.m.That is because you are willfully ignorant and not able to think critically.
-
Bovver
Feb. 28, 2008, 4:10 p.m.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.
-
Bovver
Feb. 28, 2008, 4:43 p.m.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.
-
OnionHeadComment has been removed: Retracted by user
-
rdy2rckComment has been removed: Hard Banned
-
Bovver
Feb. 28, 2008, 5:02 p.m.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.
-
Bovver
Feb. 28, 2008, 5:10 p.m.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.
-
Bovver
Feb. 28, 2008, 6:10 p.m.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.
-
Bovver
Feb. 28, 2008, 6:10 p.m.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.
-
not2needy
Feb. 28, 2008, 6:11 p.m.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.
-
Bovver
Feb. 28, 2008, 6:21 p.m.Spending money on health care doesn't help build empires nor satisfy the demands for endless wars of democratic liberation espoused by the Straussians in the Bush administration.
The first 193 comments are shown. Show all 234 comments »
Submit a Story
Advertisement
