Cost of the iraq war

anyway check that out, its current amount of money in the iraqi war this year so far i believe.

a friend send it to me so i'm curious what people here think of it

You'd think there were better things they could have spent that on.

*cough*"GET YOUR *** TO MARS"*cough*

Or, I dunno, maybe if that was spent on converting to alternative energy sources, the war wouldn't have been necessary in the first place. You could probably feed some poor people with that kind of cash too.

...you're not seriously trying to imply that the war was for oil, are you?

Helena, Montana is pretty disappointing. It goes too slow...

The cost of the war was why I opposed it to begin with. I ideologically agree with the campaign--Saddam is an evil dictator and should have been toppled--but Americans shouldn't have to foot the whole bill for years and years. On the other hand, we started the engagement, so it responsibly would go on our tab.

$160 billion! YEESH. Thank god for deficit spending! Why pay now when you can expect the next generation to pay for you later?

...I sense certain Bush-bashers jumping on this thread and spewing out random statements....

I think Bush is doing a good job. He's doing the best he can with what he's got (meaning taxes, equipment, troops, etc.) The best thing we can do now is support the remaining efforts in Iraq. What else can we do? Moaning about the cost of the war will accomplish nothing.

If anyone is curious, the US national debt:

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

That count seems inaccurate. I did some quick math, and at the current rate of advancement, that's 105 billion dollars a year. Considering the count's only at 160 billion at the moment....something seems fishy.

Just my bit of interjection, there.

That doesn't even predict what the future costs will be.

Think of how inexpensive sand costs will be though.

For a war, that's cheep.

if we stop watering our stupid lawns, stop leaving worthless lights on, and put our computers on hibrenate, we should be in good shape....:em321:

Cheep, eh?

save the poor people

*sigh* that's the dollar amount, but not the casualty count...or the amount of ruined lives...or the rise in dissent...

Think how many hamburgers you could have bought!

ROFL.

Compare this to the untenable cost of being on the defensive against Islamist terrorism for the next two hundred years. I don't just mean in financial terms, either. The only way Islamist terrorism will ever cease to be a threat to America is when Muslims can live fulfilling lives. That will only happen when what is taking hold in Iraq spreads. Yes, the cost of this war is staggering, but the cost of doing nothing in the face of a problem that shows no signs of going away on its own is unimaginable.

But yeah, let's not be confused by long-term thinking. Spend it on the pooooooooooooooooooooooor, man!

Ohhhh, thats a big number. I suppose Bush haters think "Oh man all that money is just GONE!"

Wake up.. when you spend money, someone else makes money. True, when you fire a missile and it blows up, money is lost, but we arent just sitting there blasting off missiles anymore.

Yes we had to foot the bill for most of the election costs... but I was under the impression that most wanted democracy brought to the oppressed people over there. Then we find out "Oh we have to PAY for it??? Bush is an evil liar!!"

Hmmm....
December 2002: Estimated cost of Iraq war reduced: Bush budget director now says $60 billion

Maybe the world would have a more favorable view of the United States had we spent the 160 billion on immunizations for every child in the world for the next 53 years, as we could have according to the site. Or ending world hunger. Or something.

Oh then we would look like we're trying to spread our influence across the globe through "humanitarian aid." Of course this is still going to piss of nations.

Well its good to live in North Dakota... they owe the least

I'd gladly pay that if it meant toppling a totalitarian regime and bringing democracy to a country (and possibly setting off a chain reaction throughout the entire region).

I think an unprovoked war is a little bit more offensive than giving aid to those suffering from hunger.

Except Islamist radicals would never have gained any control under the Ba'ath party's Iraq (and they're far more likely to do so now). Al Qaeda were bitterly opposed to the Ba'ath party's secularism, and Saddam Hussein oppressed the extremeists, along with everyone else. Al Qaeda are very much opposed to the same dictators that the US supposedly are.
Fighting against the dictators in the Middle East is not the same as fighting Al Qaeda. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein certainly removed a dictator, and certainly changed the political system of Iraq, but it did nothing against Al Qaeda. Were it some other country that were invaded, that may well have affected Al Qaeda, but not Iraq.

Whether it is just or correct or indeed necessary to invade a country in order to remove a dictator is certainly a question worth asking, but there is no way you can link Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden and trying to do so is frankly ridiculous.

Far too many people confuse the governments of Middle Eastern countries with Islamist radical groups.

Technically we already won the "war" a few years ago. What we now refer to as the "war" is the ongoing peace keeping and stabilization that's going on.

Now please, people, we’ve already been over this issue a million times. Both sides have state their points and ignored the other side’s points. I thought we got over this after the election.

You know, I don't care if this is the internet and whether you are joking or not, but I'd appreciate it if you quit spamming your useless "burgerboy" ****.

Chill dude, he was joking! Someone insert a funny pic, or I will (and we all know what happens then).

In review: America is cool, but not always

*looks around suspisciously*

.......this is a trap, isn't it?

Man, that's crazy...I hate politics at times.....

Who woulda though a war would cost this much? It sucks, but hey Americans are well off right? At least this money went to some good. This is a simplistic view, but for this particular situation I say we all enjoy a good-sized helping of apathy!!!!

At least the money is going to some good.

Same thing I thought. Last I checked, Freelancer would rather kill himself than say something like that.

Then those regimes would've confinscated all the food and starved their people so they would still have all the power.

What a cunundrum.

I don't think this was supposed to be a debate. I think it was , more or less, just something to look at. $160 billion is a big number. End of story.

Does anyone know whether they resolved the issue concerning the $8.8 billion dollars missing in Iraq?

I wasn't debating, I was stating a fact and being sarcastic.

I never said Arab dictatorships were the same as Islamic radical groups. But the price for "peace" and stability in Egypt under Mubarak is violence on our own soil. What you don't understand is that making peace with dictatorial Arab states necessarily means being at odds with their people.

Has what's happened in Iraq weakened al Qaeda directly? No. But it will in the long run, because the domino effect of toppling Arab dictators will mean that their people can channel their efforts towards building better lives for themselves instead of fighting the West. Arab democracies will probably have an overt anti-American stance, like in South America, but when burdened with such mundane things as fixing potholes and dealing with economic policy, global jihad will take a back seat. I don't really care what they say, or if they hate us. Hatred of the US isn't the source of terrorism. I care about them not blowing our **** up.