The cost of the Iraq war
True, we got rid of Saddam and gave Iraqi’s a shot of democracy whether they wanted it or not, but is it worth the half trillion we’ve spent on a ill begotten war few support and most don’t? I agree with the majority, the answer is no.
Most Americans supported the war when it was going good (about three weeks), but once they found out the Mission was not Accomplished and when they discovered they had been deceived of why we went to war, most Americans wised up. They wised up so much that only five percent of us believe Bush can get us out of Iraq in a responsible manner.
The monetary costs of war should always be discussed, but never more so than the human price. Lives and limbs cannot be expensed, neither can the awful experience family’s and loved ones suffer through—-grief, divorce, broken homes, kids without parents, loneliness.
This war is hell but only about one percent of us are in it. The rest of us pay fewer taxes, overjoyed that football season is here, the World Series is coming and let us all head for the mall in our financed automobiles and charge the dickens out of our credit cards.
If this war was the right thing to do, there would not be the great national debate, Bush would be riding high in the polls, the world would be backing us and the troops would all be home for Christmas. But, we are where we are. Most of you initially supported the war, backed Bush twice and hopefully now, regret it. I endure the consequences of what you have wrought, but at least I can say, I never supported Bush or his vanity war and I feel good about that. How about you?
This letter has not been edited.
Phil,
I suppose you wanted this money to go to Americans to pay for their free health care, education etc.. your probably some socialist communist that wants Americans to help Americans. the patriotic thing to do is send all our money to Iraq for the war profiteering corporations and to stay the course. Come on call yourself a great Patriotic American and lets continue to put a boot up their ass.
Posted by Karl Cheney on September 17, 2007 02:28 PMGreat math skills. Try Social Security now. I'll give you a hint: it costs $1.7 billion a day.
Posted by John II on September 17, 2007 02:51 PMJohn II,
God forbid that we'd spend our money on our own people.
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 17, 2007 02:56 PMStan, Stan, Stan,
Our own freeloading welfare nanny state citizens would just love that wouldn't they, You mean to tell me you want a socialist agenda helping our own people? This would only create more of the citizens not taking responsibility for theselves, is this what you want? If it takes three jobs and 16 hours a day for a single mother with no health insurance to make it by god she got herself in that predicament and it's not our responsibility to help her one bit. Come on Stan our money is much better served building and rebuilding hospitals and schools for the little children of Iraq. This is the US loving and patriotic thing to do, after all that single Mother's kids will foot the bill for years later down the road for this chest swelling patriotic war we have. And I think that will make them feel better about themselves, they have helped out other people in another country rather than our lazy, welfare, no personal responsibilty, nanny state fellow Americans. God bless th USofA and GWB!!!
Posted by Karl Cheney on September 17, 2007 03:08 PMdouble JOhn has gone round and round with the Social Security. Even though my 80 year old dad has paid into Social Security for 50 years double John believes it to be a government handout. Of course if we privatize social security suddenly all the money we have paid into it will appear. Nonsensical arguments from someone who is looking to profit from privatizing social security. Apples to oranges to compare paying people the money that they have saved as oppossed to corporate profiteering in Iraq.
Posted by It's True on September 17, 2007 03:29 PMPhil - Don't forget to deduct from your figures what the military costs daily in peacetime. Only the additional troops, combat pay, machinery and supplies are the true "cost" of being at war. The peacetime budget is not part of the additional cost.
But I for one do not regret voting twice for Bush. Not because I think he's the greatest president, but rather, look who our other choices where.
Lesser of evils is what got Bush elected AND relected.
Posted by KW on September 17, 2007 03:30 PMHow much do we pay Halliburton during peace time? If you voted for Bush twice, you should do us all a favor and not vote anymore.
Posted by It's True on September 17, 2007 03:35 PMActually that number seemed a bit large. There are 365 days in a year times 24 hours in a day time 60 minutes in an hour which totals up to 525,600 minutes in a year. Now if I multiply this by $14,000,000 I get 7,358,400,000,000. This means the war is costing us 7.358 trillion dollars a year.
If I take your second number of $330,000,000 per day and divide it by 24 time 60 I find you are at 229,000 per minute about one sixty first of your original number I come out with about $120 billion per year, which is much more realistic.
Who ever figured out it was costing $14 million a minute didn't have a clue about numbers and when they got a huge one were perfectly happy to announce it to the world.
How do liberals expect to be believed when they can't even multiply?
Posted by JIm on September 17, 2007 03:42 PMIt's true. I'll promise not to vote anymore if you promise to not vote either. It's kind of ironic that you bring up Halliburton on the same day that Hillary re-announces the socialist Hillary care scheme. You Libs are amazin'.
Posted by Guess Who on September 17, 2007 04:01 PMJim,
Thank you for your corrections, with this in mind we can stay there much longer to rack up that kind of miltary spending, You sir are a great American and mega Dittos!!
Posted by Karl Cheney on September 17, 2007 04:28 PMGuess Who,
Thank you for pointing out to these damn libs about the socialist agenda for health care. It would cost billions to change the system so we Americans would have to pay for health care for each other. I for one sir would much rather send our billions to Iraq so we can make Iraq a safe democracy and they can vote on whether they would like to socialize their health care to take care of their people. Why are we quibbling over a few billion a day, or week. Hey if it makes Iraq a safer place for the Iraqi's and they are dumb enough to vote in some socialized medicine for every citizen, I say let them. We can sit back here and laugh while we pay top dollar for the best medical treatment decided on by your insurance company.
Posted by Karl Cheney on September 17, 2007 04:39 PMKarl
It is another Commie plot to actually want to use part of our national budget to help control the Mountain Pine Beetle infestation here in Colorado. Why in the world would we want to use our National Forest Service to fight the spread of this pandemic when we can spend that treasure repainting schools in Iraq to cover up the blood? George Bush is not fooled by these threats to our land. Better to kill Muslim women and children (collateral damage of course) in the Middle East then bugs in our backyard.
Ten , twelve or fourteen billion it doesn't matter does it? George Bush says we have an unlimited credit card with China and now that Republicans have decided that the deficit is no big deal let's do some serious binge spending for more war toys.
Don't let the Commies get you down with this reckless spending crap Karl. If the die hard hate government Republicans can spend our federal funds like drunken sailors there is no limit to the number of years we can stay in Iraq. All in the name of fighting terrorists and subcontracting to Halliburton. Woohoo war supporters.
Posted by Wes on September 17, 2007 05:01 PMKarl and Wes. Fighting and winning the Jihad war is necessary and should be continued until the threat is gone. You want socialized health care. I'm happy with the care provided by my private insurance plan. You want out of Iraq. I think you're foolish and naive. Spending tax dollars on Socialized medicine has a net negative affect on me. Spending those dollars in Iraq will, in the long run, help end the jihadist movement. It's going to be good for me and for you too, whether you like it or not.
Posted by Guess Who on September 17, 2007 05:29 PMWes - Cost of the war is the subject and you want to talk about how Bush is the cause of the pine beetle problem?
You feeling ok?
Posted by KW on September 17, 2007 05:34 PMGuess Who,
Spoken like a true patriotic conservative sir. If it has a negative effect on you personally but could be good for more American people in the future vote NO. If it is good for you but bad for the country who cares right? Vote for your interests only, it is the conservative patriotic way. Make sure your personal interests are covered first. My father in his 70's and an ex marine, a true patriotic conservative says "I would rather have tax breaks now than worry about global warming in the future, after all I'm not going to be here anyway". Spoken like the strong Christian conservative he is. God bless his fiscal sense..
Posted by Karl Cheney on September 17, 2007 06:10 PMWhat most Dems fail to realize when criticizing the cost of the war on terror is the catastrophic effect on our whole economy if a nuke goes off in an American city,or more likely,multiple cities.
It is money well spent.
Does anyone really believe if a nuclear weapon was made available the terrorists would not use it?
If we don't continue an offensive stance in this war it will only be a matter of time before we get hit.
Posted by Get Real on September 17, 2007 07:36 PMSo, Phil, other than the fact that your education doesn’t expend to simple 3rd (if that) grade level multiplication, than using some strange logic “They wised up so much that only five percent of us believe Bush can get us out of Iraq in a responsible manner.” – knowing that Bush getting us out of Iraq is not even an option, only liberals planning on loosing this war.
Human price? On 9/11 it took under 3 hours to loose as many Americans as more than 3 years in the war. Where is your comparison? How many more lives would have been lost, if that attack went unanswered? Opps, I forgot I’m talking to a liberal living in lala land, somewhere, with a brain clouded by illegal drugs.
Right, let's "re-build" Iraq with my tax (socialist dollars"). I'd like to remove myself from the "donor" pool for this war.
AND, if you have children, pay for their education yourself. Give me my money back you Socialists!
I'm a homo. You know, those perverts you hate.
GIVE ME MY MONEY!
Posted by rick on September 17, 2007 09:43 PMKW said the following:
"But I for one do not regret voting twice for Bush."
...proving conclusively that he has no shame..
Posted by Charles B on September 17, 2007 10:29 PMGuess Who issued his Fatwa of Irony:
"Fighting and winning the Jihad war is necessary and should be continued..."Posted by Charles B on September 17, 2007 10:35 PM
Get Real is very scared:
"What most Dems fail to realize when criticizing the cost of the war on terror is the catastrophic effect on our whole economy if a nuke goes off in an American city,or more likely,multiple cities."
It doesn't follow that simply criticizing the cost of the war is going to cause a nuke to go off.
But Get Real is scared so he thinks we should sh*t our tax dollars down the drain in mute passivity. With classic conservative flair he conflates the "war on terror" with our invasion and occupation of Iraq, as though one had anything to do with the other.
Why are you so scared Get Real? Does your fear mean the terrorists have defeated you on personal level? If so, do you really need to bring the rest of us down with you?
Posted by Charles B on September 17, 2007 10:49 PMUno is all mixed up (must be the Faux News):
"On 9/11 it took under 3 hours to loose as many Americans as more than 3 years in the war. Where is your comparison? How many more lives would have been lost, if that attack went unanswered? Opps, I forgot I’m talking to a liberal living in lala land, somewhere, with a brain clouded by illegal drugs."
Another brilliant conservative mind weighs in, completely unable seperate 9-11 from our invasion of Iraq.
Here's a multiple choice question for you Uno:
Which of the following countries were responsible for the attack on 9-11?
a) Iraq
b) Afghanistan
c) Saudi Arabia
d) c)&d)
And by the way, we responded to the attack on 9-11 by attacking Afghanistan.
Posted by Charles B on September 17, 2007 11:03 PMHow about we spend the money securing our borders - which are as weak as they were on 9/11?
For those of you who are so convinced that the war in Iraq is such a terrific idea - do you plan to piss and moan when you have to pay the costs to the vets who have the audacity to survive - but come home with physical and or mental disabilities (oh - I forgot - the VA says that somebody who comes back from a 3rd or 4th tour of duty after seeing friends get killed on each tour & who develops PTSD MUST have had a pre-existing condition, so you won't have to pay for their healthcare)?
I know about vets - my father (who died in 5/2001 - otherwise he would be raising hell about how this "war" is being fought) after serving OVER 30 years in the military (and I have a brother who retired after 20 years, a sister who served over 16 years, a sister-in-law who served 12, and another brother who served 4 years - not to mention uncles & cousins who served) regularly saw any COLAs he got erased (and then some) by degradation in services to vets. This country seems to want the military to die for it - heaven forbid someone serve honorably for whatever enlistment period & the government honor its promises made when that person enlisted (or was drafted).
The war in Iraq - which even Greenspan (whom one could hardly consider a liberal - unless one is so blinded by loyalty to Bush that he/she can't see anything else) has said is a war about oil (of which the US has yet to see one DROP of oil to its benefit), not about fighting terrorism. How much would it have cost the US to ACTUALLY fight the war on terror: go after bin Laden & try him for 9/11 instead of being distracted by administrations lies about how dangerour Iraq was? The story went from involvement in 9/11 - disproved, to attempts to buy uranium for bombs - disproved, to creating a democracy - as someone pointed out, whether the Iraqis wanted it or not. Even Bush the first KNEW that invading Iraq (in 1991) would result in the civil wars we are seeing today - because as terrible a human being as Hussein was, he was the only person the US could count on to maintain stability in a country created by British fiat post WWI (yes, World War One) of tribes which had been at each other's throats for over a thousand years.
For those of you who truly believe in the war in Iraq:
1) enlist - or if you are too old, encourage any family members of military age to join up
2) refund any tax breaks you have gotten to help pay for it
Put your money & your life (or the lives of your loved ones) where you mouth is - then I will believe you are something other than a chickenhawk like Bush & Cheney.
You feeling ok?
Posted by KW on September 17, 2007 05:34 PM
Thanks for the concern big guy. I also liked your post over in the letter by Brian that we could agree to disagree.
As far as your question is concerned, I was trying to point out that while you Republicans are hiding under your beds afraid of the jihadists, there are other threats to our communities that will actually have a longer lasting effect than your pant wetting hypothetical fears. We are going to lose our Front Forests because of a lack of funds to contain this pandemic and yes the destruction of our forests and our national forest service is the result of policies made in Washington.
As far as the effect on our economy of the scary jihadists, the realistic solution is to secure our borders which isn't happening. The second possibility which is unimaginable to the "shoot first" crowd is to actually engage in international diplomacy. I read somewhere that it would take 30 billion dollars to deal with the most severe medical diseases in Africa. I know it is impossible for Republicans to understand this but if you help people then you marginalize their extremists. There are better ways to secure our country than flushing 12 billion a month into the sands of Iraq. The bottom line is even if "The Surge" reduces violence in Baghdad, we aren't safer here in the US because we haven't addressed the root causes of political violence. We are also more vulnerable to threats that don't carry a gun. This is the true stupidity of Republicans that they can't see beyond the barrel of a gun.
Posted by Wes on September 18, 2007 06:38 AMMary:
"The war in Iraq - which even Greenspan has said is a war about oil, not about fighting terrorism."
Well, that isn't exactly what he said, althought the press sure wishes he did.
Here's the actual quote:
""If Saddam Hussein had been head of Iraq and there was no oil under those sands, our response to him would not have been as strong as it was in the first gulf war. And the second gulf war is an extension of the first. My view is that Saddam, looking over his 30-year history, very clearly was giving evidence of moving towards controlling the Straits of Hormuz, where there are 17, 18, 19 million barrels a day"
Given that, "I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential," he said. But he added that he was not implying that the war was an oil grab.Posted by KW on September 18, 2007 10:00 AM
Wes - Please refrain from the moveon talking points. I don't think anyone here is shaking in their boots, afraid of terrorists taking over the USA.
What I'm afraid of, deathly afraid, is the wrong people being elected to office who will not act when terrorists threaten our lives or safety. People who prefer to disarm our military and attempt to appease the enemy thru negotiations, thus bringing down this once great country.
You should be afraid of that as well.
Posted by KW on September 18, 2007 10:07 AMCharles B - I noticed you didn't reprint my entire quote. I finished by saying
"Not because I think he's the greatest president, but rather, look who our other choices where."
But then again, if you reference my entire sentence you wouldn't have been able to make an argument, now would you?
For shame.
Posted by KW on September 18, 2007 10:12 AMMy father in his 70's and an ex marine, a true patriotic conservative says "I would rather have tax breaks now than worry about global warming in the future, after all I'm not going to be here anyway". Spoken like the strong Christian conservative he is. God bless his fiscal sense..
Posted by Karl Cheney on September 17, 2007 06:10 PM
Actually Karl you should pay attention to your father, not because he's not going to be there in the future when AGW effects us, but because AGW is hogwash.
This was all started with the famous hockey stick paper showing no temperature variations until the 1970s which has been proven false. We then went into this is the hottest it's ever been (turns out 1934 was). Now we know the hottest recent year was 1998 and we haven't gotten hotter since then. This is explained by the sun caused global warming deniers by saying natural variation has overpowered AGW, but it will be back by 2009.
You have an unproven theory that the proponents prop up with unproven computer models.
We are constantly bombarded with stories of tragedies caused by global warming, when in the past periods of warming, the human race has flourished (ie, the Medieval warm period).
And if you'd like to get the facts about AGW, try this http://eteam.ncpa.org/files/GlobalWarmingPrimer_low.pdf
just curious Jim, Do you believe in Evolution?
Posted by It's True on September 18, 2007 10:46 AMJust think when all the liberals start bitching about the mini ice age in 2020 that the Republicans cause.
Posted by Keith on September 18, 2007 11:16 AMPhil Kenny is just another Democrat coward looking for a way to give aid and comfort to our enemy.
Posted by An American on September 18, 2007 01:01 PMJim
Global warming facts from National Center for Policy Analysis??? They are tied to Exxon to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Posted by GK on September 18, 2007 02:14 PMKW said:
"Lesser of evils is what got Bush elected AND relected."
No KW - right wing buddies in the Supreme Court are what got him APPOINTED AFTER THEY STOPPED THE COUNT IN FLORIDA. And you can say without embarrassment that you voted TWICE for this clown, KW? For shame - I thought that even you had more sense than that!
You'd vote a 3-toed sloth for president if it had an (R) after its name, KW. Come to think of it, that would be a huge improvement on what we have right now!
Posted by drew on September 18, 2007 02:43 PMUn-American & Keith must be posting together from the trailer park. How cute! I wonder if Keith's wearing his red dress? (I know, KW, I just hate those poor people without health care in trailer parks!).
Posted by drew on September 18, 2007 02:50 PMdrew:
"No KW - right wing buddies in the Supreme Court are what got him APPOINTED AFTER THEY STOPPED THE COUNT IN FLORIDA."
Spoken like a true loyal member of moveon.
Have you ever bothered to read the supreme court transcripts or are you content with this make believe version of the facts?
Even if your fringe left distorion of the truth was true, it still wouldn't change that Bush was the lesser of eveils... TWICE.
Posted by KW on September 18, 2007 03:18 PMSomeone with less than stellar reasoning and comprehension skills implied earlier that Alan Greenspan doesn't think that the Iraq war was about oil...
The actual quote from the actual book:
"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."
Even his latest statement--the one today were he tries to backpeddle (typical)--suggests that the war was about indeed about oil. Specifically, the ability to control the transport of oil through the Straights of Hormuz.
If you're going to be a warmonger cough**KW**cough, at least be honest about it.
Posted by gsr on September 18, 2007 05:24 PMgsr - I quoted Greenspan.
Can't get anymore honest than that.
Unlike you who pulled one line out of entire book and take it out of context.
But hey, whatever floats your Bush hating boat.
Posted by KW on September 18, 2007 06:09 PMCharles B. 10:49-
I'll take this real slow,just for you and your special needs.
My point obviously was the cost of the war is justified and infinitesimal compared to the scenario of a nuclear strike on a U.S.city,and the resulting domestic economic chaos.
Duh.
Posted by Get Real on September 18, 2007 06:11 PMGet Real:
Your attempt to make a "point" merely unmasked your totally exaggerated fear of terrorist attacks.
Exactly the reaction that terrorists depend on.
If we are really going to spend money on what is most likely to harm us, we would be putting it all into medical and environmental research.
Some perspective is in order.
Posted by Charles B on September 18, 2007 07:57 PMKW dug deeper:
"Charles B - I noticed you didn't reprint my entire quote. "
I was trying to save you further embarrassment.
What was it about Bush that made you feel he was a superior candidate? His fake rancher persona? His habit of stepping on his tongue? His daddy having been President?
Posted by Charles B on September 18, 2007 08:02 PMI can't believe what a bunch of weak girly men these Democrats are.Drew-ling is a good example.
Posted by An American on September 19, 2007 10:03 AMHello McCharles???
I said Bush was the LESSER of evils. Never said he was "superior" as you put it.
Gore and Kerry would have been much worse Presidents but like a foiled terrorist attack, we'll never know the total amount of dissaster that was averted, or how many lives were saved.
Next time, try responding to what I actually post without taking it out of context OR rewriting it to fit your argument.
Posted by KW on September 19, 2007 11:07 AMCharles B, quietly coughed up some sludge and wiped it on his shirt sleeve, and said in a raspy voice “Another brilliant conservative mind weighs in” – thanks, Charles, this time I’m in agreement with you.
Then, between two big swallows, he continued;
“Which of the following countries were responsible for the attack on 9-11?
a) Iraq
b) Afghanistan
c) Saudi Arabia
d) c)&d)
The obviously correct answer is non of the above. No specific country attacked us, but an insane group of animals who’s main goal is to spread terror wherever they can in the world. They use terror and propaganda to try to change the political landscape in countries or political groups which lets them. It obviously worked in Spain, and the USA on the Democrats and many Republicans. But, I’m proud to say that it will not work on me and about 1/3 of the population. They will not tell me what to think or do, or for that matter neither will you Charles, because I have free will, and I believe that killing thousands of innocent Americans was wrong and it is our government’s main function to protect this country. It’s not surprising that we fight them in Iraq and Afghanistan, that is what Bush wanted, and he did say so. That most of you ignored this does not come as a surprise, knowing that even some well know celebrities call Bush the worlds worst terrorist. Osama must be proud of such a support, may be even jealous of Bush’s title. But one thing I have do doubt about, if there was an other attack under Bush’s presidency, those who think Bush is violating peoples constitutional rights would be the first ones screaming that he hasn’t done enough. This is the new era of ugly politics, with some people rather siding with terrorists against their own country, than to do the right thing and be part of protecting it. A new generation of so called “progressives” are emerging, fighting with everything they got to change what remnants of once a great country remains. The new America became the breeding ground for drug addict unemployable trash, generations living off welfare, government dependency, fraud in every aspect of life, liars in business and government, buying votes with welfare checks, and people spending more time on how to screw each other or the system than ever before. But, hey, I say give the people what they want. You cooked it for the last 40 years, now you can eat it too.
KW said:
"but like a foiled terrorist attack, we'll never know the total amount of dissaster that was averted, or how many lives were saved..."
Well, KW, let's do some basic math. My hunch is that Gore/Kerry would've actually gone after Osama & his terrorists - in Afghanistan, Pakistan & elsewhere. My hunch is that they wouldn't have attacked a third country - Iraq - that had nothing to do with 911. Let's see - that's probably 150,000 lives saved right there Iraqi & American. And if Gore/Kerry had been president, Osama would probably be DEAD, not still giving television interviews with his newly-dyed beard.
Second, Gore/Kerry would probably have DONE something about Katrina/New Orleans - you know, rather than fly over & wave to starving, drowning people on their way to the ranch - there's another 20,000 or so lives saved there.
According to my calculations that's about 170,000 lives saved - without even thinking about it - if the Dumbass-in-Chief hadn't stolen the 2000 election.
So, what were you saying again about lives being saved...?
drew:
"My hunch is..."
Anything written beyond that is meaningless. Your hunch is heavily biased in favor of the likes of Gore/Kerry.
That alone speaks volumes of your inability to assess this objectively.
drew - Here's a hint, Gore would still be wanting to review intelligence reports finding a way to blame 9/11 on George Sr and Kerry would be working feverishly at dismantling the military thinking they were the root of the problem.
And all the while our economy would be sunk and 70% of your income would go to taxes to pay for Kerrycare and Goremal Warming.
Posted by KW on September 19, 2007 04:21 PMUno, so what do you think these guys are after?
What do they hope to achieve by attacking the US?
Establish a Caliphate in America, boss you around and make your girl wear a veil?
Stop you from drinking beer on sundays?
The cost of war is meaningless to Bush because he is borrowing money. The man got a C minus in economics ( not the B he boasted of) and somehow thinks he can keep taxes low and still spend 500 billion on the War. How? With money that your kids and grandkids are going to have to pay in the form of much higher taxes in their lifetimes. Amazing how he can spend so much on Iraqi freedom and then threaten to veto a health bill in the US for American children because its irresponsible! The man is slime.
Posted by Taxman on September 20, 2007 12:52 PMIt’s simpler that that Bango, to kill as many Americans as they can
Posted by Uno on September 20, 2007 07:48 PM