You think the war in Iraq is costing us too much?
 

All valid points:

-S

So... I guess this makes the $1 trillion or so that might as well have been flushed down the toilet cool?

PD

SUBMAN1 Don't be to surprised if there's illegal aliens or supporters of same on this website.:yep:

Btw Thx for posting dollar figures and supporting links.:up:

It's an eye opening wakeup call to say the least.:o

Yeah the Iraq war is bargin a by comparison!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/07/usa.iraq

In a word...

No.

Mikhayl - Permettez-moi. Votre Anglais est beaucoup mieux que ma Francais, but the word the word 'migrant' refers to somebody who wanders around the face of the earth, such as nomads or itinerant farm workers. The word you were looking for is 'immigrant', referring to somebody who was born somewhere and then moved to another place (in context, normally another country) to live. In that context, everybody in the Americas is an immigrant or is at least descended from immigrants. Heck, even that touchstone of the American Establishment, the Pilgrims, were immigrants. Come to think of it, even the native population seems to have wandered in some 10,000 years ago in search of a better neighbourhood (it worked for a while).

The author that the essay identifies anonymously as a noble prize winner and Harvard professor, is Prof. Stiglitz, and I linked his latest statements and calculation from mid-March this year four weeks ago. It is not 1 trillion anymore, that was in early 2006.

Note that one German "Billion" is 1 US trillion, and 1 german "Milliarde" is 1 US billion.

I'm sorry that this is in German, but so far I was too lazy to translate it all, it is quite good a read.

Stiglitz argues in the short quote from that interview that the war has costed minimum 3 trillion so far, but more realistic is 5 trillion if including costs for veterans and the costs for rebuilding of the military, withdrawing the troops one day, rebuilding the military position in the region, and other delayed costs like that. Next he mentions microcosts like those 500.000 dollars the family of a fallen soldiers is receiving and that so far are not included in official war cost calculation. and finally he says that everybody demanding troops to be stationed in Iraq for the next four years or even 100 years like McCain demanded, must tell the american people who should pay the 12 billion per month that this would cost.

It is nice to see it in numbers, to visualize what sums we talk about. Sums are rounded.

5.000.000.000.000 $ war costs so far
9.444.443.000.000 $ outstanding US public debts oin 11th April 2008.
1.200.000.000.000 $ war costs per year in the future (minimum), quoted by the interview excerpt. That roughly compares to the ammount of money the IMF has just cautiously estimated the current credit crisis will cost the global economy in write-offs (annihilated money). Each year in Iraq costs one additonal credit crisis - but not all the globe, but the US economy alone, so the burden is even worse for america to bear. now see what the shared credit crisis already has done to the US economy, and then go figure regarding the war.


"The estimated population of the United States is 303,791,275
so each citizen's share of this debt is $31,088.59. The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.67 billion per day since September 29, 2006!" (US national debt clock)

I find that investing in things that go boom is not exactly good business. Politicians that want war should try to kill each other while we watch from the bleachers. That would be jolly good sport. :D

I guess from an emotional point of view this comparison would serve some purpose. However the logic is flawed.

One does not calculate the expense of A based on the the expense of B unless there is a relationship between the two.

How does the money "spent" on illegal aliens in any way influence the costs of the Invasion?

This makes about as much sense as those people who claim that the Invasion is not that bad as more military died in one battle in WW-II than in the Invasion.

Sooooo?

One should not confuse emotions with logic. :nope:

It used to be that the kings who made the war fought the war, led the charges. Seems a fair deal - a bunch of flatulent old suits floundering around in the mud flailing at each other with their briefcases and three-piece haircuts. I'd pay to watch.

Speak for yourself man. If you bought stocks in Lockheed Martin the first day of trading after 9/11, your portfolio would have almost tripled in value by the end of 2007 (trading at 44.20 Sept 21 2001, trading at 110.48 Dec 21 2007). Similar trends can be observed in all other major defence contractors.

Hmmmm......the US goes to war, the taxpayer picks up the gigantic bill and huge corporations make lots of cash.........:hmm:

Somebody pointed out that if you'd invested $1,000 in Enron stock, your investment would now be worth about $23. On the other hand, if you'd bought $1,000 worth of beer, the empties would now be worth about $60. 'Beer economics', ya gotta love it.

Seriously, the point is that while the armament industry is profitable for the investors in those companies, societies as a whole would be better off if the money was invested in schools, hospitals, etc. Don't get me wrong - defence spending is a very necessary evil and there is nothing more expensive than an army that is not quite good enough, but it's an overall loss to society. I hope my greatgreatgreatgrandchildren have to look up my profession in a dictionary.

Nah, don't get me wrong. A military that's too good is about as worse than one that isn't good enough. If you spend enough money, sooner or later you need to start coming up with ways to justify it.

So true.