Cost of 13 years of war: $1.6 trillion

Where_r_my_Keys

Gold Member
Jan 19, 2014
15,272
1,848
280
"Thirteen years of war have cost the United States roughly $1.6 trillion.

Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in 2001, the government has spent the money on military operations, base support, weapons maintenance, training of Afghan and Iraq security forces, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs and veterans’ healthcare, according to a recently released report by the Congressional Research Service tracking expenses through September.

The money was distributed to Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation New Dawn, Operation Enduring Freedom for Afghanistan, Operation Noble Eagle and other war-designated funding not directly died to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, according to the report.

Nearly half of the money spent, $815 billion, went toward the Iraq War, the report said.

About 92 percent of the expenses over the past 13 years came from the Department of Defense.Though U.S. troop levels in the Middle East, especially in Afghanistan, have been on a steady decline, the war funds request for fiscal 2015 remains at $73.5 billion, including $58.1 billion for Afghanistan.

Notably missing from the totals is the request to cover expenses for Operation Inherent Resolve, the airstrikes that began in late August against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

“There are some indications that the [Defense Department's fiscal 2015] war funding request may be more than is needed in light of [2014's] experience when expenses for returning troops and equipment have proven to be lower and the pace faster than anticipated,” the report said, referring to the cost of the airstrikes against the Islamic State and the recent announcement by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel that roughly 1,000 groups may remain in Afghanistan until spring 2015."

Cost of 13 years of war 1.6 trillion WashingtonExaminer.com

SO... One obama/Democrat Annual Deficit?

Wow... who would have bet (besides me...) that executing a world war for nearly 15 years would cost a FRACTION (~ 1/6th) of what it costs to simply allow the Left to Control the US Government for say... 6 years?

Huh.
 
13 years, that is all, I guess the bombing of the USS Cole while Bill Clinton was in office, was not part of this war. I guess the Declaration of War by Osama Bin Laden during while Clinton was in office was not part of this War? How about Saddam Hussein and his violation of the terms of surrender, which as President, Clinton Swore to enforce?

13 years?

What is the cost of 6 years of Obama compared to the War with Osama. 8$ Trillion dollars. Damn, as far as dollars go, Osama cost much less than Obama
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #6
13 years, that is all, I guess the bombing of the USS Cole while Bill Clinton was in office, was not part of this war. I guess the Declaration of War by Osama Bin Laden during while Clinton was in office was not part of this War? How about Saddam Hussein and his violation of the terms of surrender, which as President, Clinton Swore to enforce?

13 years?

What is the cost of 6 years of Obama compared to the War with Osama. 8$ Trillion dollars. Damn, as far as dollars go, Osama cost much less than Obama

Yeah... But it only counts as war, if the person who is playing President is told to tell us, that we're at war.
 
I am not with the OP on this one.

It's not just the money.......

The wars basically gave us Obamacare.

If GWB hadn't been such a moron and thrown away what he had to work with......

The dems never would have developed the horsepower to push Obamacare down our throats.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #8
I am not with the OP on this one.

It's not just the money.......

The wars basically gave us Obamacare.

If GWB hadn't been such a moron and thrown away what he had to work with......

The dems never would have developed the horsepower to push Obamacare down our throats.

Well I just posted the article... mainly as a way of pointing out that a decade and a half of war; sending tens and hundreds of thousands of men and material around the planet, nonstop, 24/7/7... cost what amounts to ONE YEAR of Federal DEFICIT Spending by the Democrats.

I'm on record as holding the position that the US should NEVER send troops into anything except war, wherein the nation into which we send troops is declared the enemy... and those in that nation are therefore enemy and treated as such. Where we are interested only in winning the war, with no concern for either the enemy's heart or minds. Then, when that war is won, we leave a foot of pamphlets, from comer to corner on the deck of that nation... informing the few who survived that if the US is forced to return, we will not be inclined to be as merciful and to caution them to choose wisely in who they allow to take power... pointing out that it is THEIR DECISION and that we will be holding THEM ACCOUNTABLE for THEIR DECISIONS.

Then just leave; providing no help, no medicine, no concrete, no cash... just the information which provides them the understanding that THEY are responsible for their government.
 
I should probably point out that spending is appropriated by Congress--and it has not been in Democratic control. Not that I'm on board with Democrats, but Republicans are fuckin' idiots when it comes to fiscal responsibility. Hell, don't take my word for it--look at history from Reagan forward. Professional politicians know they can successfully wage campaigns based upon tax cuts, fear, and hatred.

We had budget surplusses until Bush came around and cut taxes for rich people. What did that bring? Massive deficits again and a sagging economy.

But keep voting, people, based upon guns, illegal immigrants, and abortion . . . none of which Republican politicians have any intention of addressing. It's all salesmanship.
 
Nothing like spending money you don't have, on wars you can't win eh?
Seem to work well for a lucky few:ack-1:
dick_cheney_3.jpg
 
I am not with the OP on this one.

It's not just the money.......

The wars basically gave us Obamacare.

If GWB hadn't been such a moron and thrown away what he had to work with......

The dems never would have developed the horsepower to push Obamacare down our throats.

Well I just posted the article... mainly as a way of pointing out that a decade and a half of war; sending tens and hundreds of thousands of men and material around the planet, nonstop, 24/7/7... cost what amounts to ONE YEAR of Federal DEFICIT Spending by the Democrats.

I'm on record as holding the position that the US should NEVER send troops into anything except war, wherein the nation into which we send troops is declared the enemy... and those in that nation are therefore enemy and treated as such. Where we are interested only in winning the war, with no concern for either the enemy's heart or minds. Then, when that war is won, we leave a foot of pamphlets, from comer to corner on the deck of that nation... informing the few who survived that if the US is forced to return, we will not be inclined to be as merciful and to caution them to choose wisely in who they allow to take power... pointing out that it is THEIR DECISION and that we will be holding THEM ACCOUNTABLE for THEIR DECISIONS.

Then just leave; providing no help, no medicine, no concrete, no cash... just the information which provides them the understanding that THEY are responsible for their government.

O.K.

I get your point.

I agree with your second paragraph.

I opposed these wars before they started because I knew GWB would screw this up.

If you are going to battled. Overwhelm and call it good.

I feel badly for what we require of our troops.
 
I should probably point out that spending is appropriated by Congress--and it has not been in Democratic control. Not that I'm on board with Democrats, but Republicans are fuckin' idiots when it comes to fiscal responsibility. Hell, don't take my word for it--look at history from Reagan forward. Professional politicians know they can successfully wage campaigns based upon tax cuts, fear, and hatred.

We had budget surplusses until Bush came around and cut taxes for rich people. What did that bring? Massive deficits again and a sagging economy.

But keep voting, people, based upon guns, illegal immigrants, and abortion . . . none of which Republican politicians have any intention of addressing. It's all salesmanship.

The problem is not 'Rs-v- Ds'.... you see there is no amount of "E" within the Rs, to compensate for the "E" typical of the Ds when the Ds are out of power, leaving the Rs to further their ends common to the Ds.

Where R=Republican, D=Democrat and E=Evil which is synonymous with the "S" factor that is socialism.

For God's sake, the US just swept the D's from power, nearly across the board... and what did the Rs do? They erased the means of the Rs to make any meaningful change in US Federal Economics, by projecting established budgetary values out for HALF OF THE Rs period of control. Now that is only relevant given that the ONLY VALUE THE Rs can MAKE IS TO NEGATIVELY EFFECT THE MEANS OF THE Ds to SPEND!

Now... be honest... is that ANYTHING in that equation which would provide for one to reasonably conclude that the Rs represented, have ANY KINSHIP with American principle?

Be honest... .
 
I am not with the OP on this one.

It's not just the money.......

The wars basically gave us Obamacare.

If GWB hadn't been such a moron and thrown away what he had to work with......

The dems never would have developed the horsepower to push Obamacare down our throats.

Well I just posted the article... mainly as a way of pointing out that a decade and a half of war; sending tens and hundreds of thousands of men and material around the planet, nonstop, 24/7/7... cost what amounts to ONE YEAR of Federal DEFICIT Spending by the Democrats.

I'm on record as holding the position that the US should NEVER send troops into anything except war, wherein the nation into which we send troops is declared the enemy... and those in that nation are therefore enemy and treated as such. Where we are interested only in winning the war, with no concern for either the enemy's heart or minds. Then, when that war is won, we leave a foot of pamphlets, from comer to corner on the deck of that nation... informing the few who survived that if the US is forced to return, we will not be inclined to be as merciful and to caution them to choose wisely in who they allow to take power... pointing out that it is THEIR DECISION and that we will be holding THEM ACCOUNTABLE for THEIR DECISIONS.

Then just leave; providing no help, no medicine, no concrete, no cash... just the information which provides them the understanding that THEY are responsible for their government.

O.K.

I get your point.

I agree with your second paragraph.

I opposed these wars before they started because I knew GWB would screw this up.

If you are going to battled. Overwhelm and call it good.

I feel badly for what we require of our troops.

Well, it is inarguable that GWs greatest fault is that he honestly believes that the Left has a right to influence federal policy. And where one tolerates the Left... they must inevitably allow that evil to influence policy and where the Left influences policy... there will just as inevitably be chaos, calamity and catastrophe.
 
False patriots love to send the cannon fodder off to die, regardless of the reason. War is so noble they say, as long as it isn't their kids dying in it.
And as long as it pays reasonably well:
"Dick Cheney served as the 46th Vice President of the United States (2001 – 2009) under PresidentGeorge W. Bush. Cheney is best known for his long career within the Republican party, but his $90 million net worth reveals lucrative roots in the private sector.

"Raised in Casper, Wyoming and educated at Yale and the University of Wyoming, Cheney first worked at the White House during the Nixon and Ford administrations. He later served six terms representing the state of Wyoming in the U.S. House of Representatives, followed by a stint as the Secretary of Defense under the George H.W. Bush administration."
Dick Cheney Net Worth Celebrity Net Worth
 
If you're going to talk about spending than please itemize the programs that are currently in place and supply which president/party created or drove the program through government.

Also, do some heavy lifting. Rather than cutting & pasting garbage or supplying links to partisan news sources, why not give us a deeper picture?

Also, maybe you should show us you understand deficit spending - especially the king of deficit spenders, Ronald Reagan. For instance, Reagan spent 3x Carter and aded 4x as many government workers (primarily in the defense sector). However, many democrats would argue that Reagan's insane defense spending - i.e., government spending - actually contributed to economic growth. Take a look at defense related spending in both San Diego and Orange counties in the 80s. This is one of the areas where Reagan's deficit spending was the most concentrated. Look specifically at the multiplier effect from the defense industrial expansion (and all the feeder industries that benefited from government contracts) and also look at the sheer number of government jobs Reagan added, which put thousands of new consumers into these local economies.

You get this right? Each government defense worker (including workers added because of defense industrial contracts) who REAGAN added to the economy was also, by virtue of this government job, a consumer who was then able to spend money on "main street" which helped those businesses stay afloat, which meant that those businesses could, in turn, maintain and grow their own labor forces, who, in turn, could continue to spend at other businesses so that those businesses could stay afloat. This is why Reagan added more government jobs than any president since Truman (who Reagan campaigned for). Reagan understood the power of government to pump money into local economies, and he practiced Military Keynesianism better than president this side of FDR.

Maybe you don't understand this stuff. Maybe you don't understand the actual policies and spending records of your political heroes. Maybe you get all your information from sources like the Washington Examiner - in which case you are always going to be a rightwing version of an Apparatchik
 

Forum List

Back
Top