So how much does the war cost?

We now have an estimate of the cost of the Iraq war. Remember when our administration was blithely proposing that it would require a few billion dollars?

The authors present a damning "Nightline" transcript in which one official, Andrew Natsios, blandly told Ted Koppel that Iraq could be completely reconstructed for only $1.7 billion. (With the war now costing $12.5 billion a month, Natsios' estimate would have been accurate if he had stipulated that it would pay for four days' worth of reconstruction. Which, considering the delusional nature of most of the Bush administration's pre-invasion estimates, may have been how long it thought it would take to rebuild the country.) Other officials settled on a figure of $50 billion to $60 billion. Larry Lindsey, Bush's economic advisor, went way out on a limb, suggesting that the war might cost $200 billion -- a figure derided by then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as "baloney."

So how much has it cost? $3 trillion. That's a bit of money.

In 2005, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the war had so far cost about $500 billion. That figure was obviously far higher than initial Bush administration estimates, but Stiglitz and Bilmes suspected it was still much too low. After researching the issue, they published a paper in January 2006 that conservatively estimated that the true cost of the war would be between $1 trillion and $2 trillion. Even at the time, they regarded that estimate as excessively conservative, but didn't want to appear extreme. Stiglitz and Bilmes' book, which is based on that paper, doubles their earlier estimates to $3 trillion, making Iraq the second most expensive war in U.S. history, trailing only World War II, which cost an adjusted $5 trillion (and in which 16.3 million Americans served in the armed forces, with 400,000 dying). But the authors regard even their new figure as conservative: Their estimates range from $2 trillion, in the best-case scenario in which the U.S. withdraws all combat troops by 2012 and fewer veterans need medical and disability pay, to more than $5 trillion. Add in the cost to the rest of the world, and the price tag could exceed $6 trillion.

Bush was the evil incompetent who got this wasted effort started, but I can't blame him alone: anyone remember that immense principled effort the Democratic party made to oppose the ramp-up to war? Nah, neither do I.

(Copied and pasted from scienceblogs.com)

Thanks Bush
Thanks Adrena
Thanks Tidusfied
Thanks Thanatos
Thanks MedievalBob
Thanks uncapped
Thanks Doofus
Thanks to all you pro-war chest thumping easily led morons who hide behind the term "American Patriot"

There is alot of good numbers and graphs and what not here: http://www.fourthfreedom.org/Applica....php?page_id=5

Entitlement spending dwarfs those numbers though, and will undoubtedly bankrupt our nation.

So much more could be accomplished with far less money. There is so much money just outright wasted in this war it makes me sick. Have you seen "Iraq For Sale; The War Profiteers"? It points out some outrageous wastful spending, like $100k big rig gets a flat tire? Fuck it, pull it over and blow it up after all they are on no bid, cost plus contracts. So the more they spend the more they make.. Fucking bullshit.

Thanks Bush Thanks Adrena Thanks Tidusfied Thanks Thanatos Thanks MedievalBob Thanks uncapped Thanks Doofus Thanks to all you pro-war chest thumping easily led morons who hide behind the term "American Patriot"

The fuck are you talking about?

I'm even more frustrated that Halliburton has received funding to drill overseas and profit exclusively for their own company, while we don't receive any of it because Halliburton has to ship gas out of country, (even though technically they are now based in Saudia arabia).


I feel it's funny that anybody, including myself, were flamed for being anti-iraq-war from the get-go.


What I find frustrating still, still is that there are a great majority of people, namely conservaties that listen to Sean Hannity/Limbaugh the group that feel Iraq has been a success and we need to stay there 'til the end of time. What a crock of shit, I had an argument with my uncle yesterday actually when we had dinner at my grandma's and he was trying to tell me that because we have liberated women and they can now freely roam the streets that we've done a good thing, so I reiterate that, that isn't even true, the terrorism there is now at an unholy amount and nobody can freely roam the streets safely, before the war Iraq was a much safer place, now it's a complete war zone, and that wasn't even the reason to begin with that we were led to Iraq, fuck. It's this type of backwards talking, scenario slandering that Americans are viewed as shitheads and our country as a whole is hated on.

The fuck are you talking about?

http://zelaron.com/forum/showthread....246#post622246

You supported the war, and now we're poor.

Even if you eliminated the military budget, entitlement spending would still be making us poor.

If I have AIDS and cancer, and get rid of the cancer, I'm still going to die.

Cancer isn't a problem.

If you are trying to oppose what I said.



You fail.

How? I don't see how your point makes a point.

If you eliminated entitlement spending, the military budget would still be making us poor as well. They are both problems. You're basically trying to say since one thing is worse than another, the lesser thing isn't an issue.

We cannot survive as a sovereign nation without defense.


We most certainly will survive without welfare and oppression.

We cannot survive as a sovereign nation without defense.

I agree. However, there's a difference between defense and offense.

The first thing that should have been done after 9/11 was a boost to our national defense. Instead, we invaded Afghanistan, didn't accomplish anything, we've invaded Iraq, still haven't accomplished anything, and in the words of the VERY MAN WHO IS TRYING TO FIX THIS (BUSH) Our nation is no safer now than it was before.

Federal spending grew to $20,705 per household in 2004—the highest level since World War II and an increase of $3,000 per household over the aver­age spending during the 1990s. After passage of the omnibus spending bill, discretionary spending was projected to increase 8.7 percent in 2005.[1] This is worrisome enough, but it pales in com­parison to the fiscal nightmare of the Medicare prescription drug benefit, which increased the government's unfunded obligations by $8.1 trillion over the next 75 years.[2] Today's taxpayers are paying the cost of entitle­ment obligations entered into by lawmakers many years ago. Total "mandatory" spending now consti­tutes 54.3 percent of total federal spending.[3] Most of this spending is devoted to entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security, which already consume 6.8 percent of gross domestic product (GDP)—8.2 percent when net interest is included— and will require far more resources in the future.[4] By 2050, spending for Social Security and Medicare is expected to increase sharply to nearly 25 percent of federal spending as baby boomers begin to retire, and total federal spending could consume nearly one-third of the national econ­omy.[5] As David Walker, Comptroller General of the United States, has noted:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg1818.cfm
Fuck the military budget. We won't have shit if welfare spending doesn't halt.
These numbers will dwarf any military spending you could imagine.

http://zelaron.com/forum/showthread....246#post622246 You supported the war, and now we're poor.

Linking to that post does nothing for me. And I'm sure my sole opinion on this matter caused America to become poor on a national scale. Nice logic.

All I'm saying is you're still a fool.

Oh well in that case it's all perfectly clear to me now! Thank you for clearing that up, fatty.

I'm a fool because the President lied to the American public and forced us into a war on false pretenses. Once again, terrific logic.

You're a fool because you believed him in the first place. Even Mj, who was like twelve, could make a decision for himself instead of being happily spoon-fed information by a monkey.

Feel free to consult a dictionary if you're still lost on this one.

I'd like to point out that I still support the war in Afghanistan, but we've been drawn so thin to the point where our co-op missions are turning up with nothing, we just need to direct more of our attention towards capturing Osama, and leaving Iraq all together.

And what word would you like me to look up? I fail to see how consulting a dictionary is going to convice me your logic isn't fucked up.

How about you blame the military advisors and upper management in the government rather than blaming the American people who were lied to? Blame them for this war. Blame them for the economy. I was like 16 at the time, my opinion didn't mean shit.

And what word would you like me to look up? I fail to see how consulting a dictionary is going to convice me your logic isn't fucked up. How about you blame the military advisors and upper management in the government rather than blaming the American people who were lied to? Blame them for this war. Blame them for the economy. I was like 16 at the time, my opinion didn't mean shit.

The word "fool."

You are to blame as well as they. You (and others like you) blindly followed their lead and supported this in the first place.