War In Iraq, Three Years In

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Annie, Mar 22, 2006.

  1. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I keep telling my students, this 'WOT' is not going to be short, regardless of what is done about Iraq, THIS Is Your Cold War. It may be longer or shorter, but shorter isn't necessarily good news:

    http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/03/21/135124.php

     
  2. Mariner
    Offline

    Mariner Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    Messages:
    772
    Thanks Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Boston, Mass.
    Ratings:
    +52
    total cost. From today's New York Times (sorry I can't provide a link, it's a subscription-only op-ed piece):

    The New York Times
    March 23, 2006
    Op-Ed Columnist
    George Bush's Trillion-Dollar War

    By BOB HERBERT

    George W. Bush's war in Iraq was never supposed to be particularly expensive. Administration types tossed out numbers like $50 billion and $60 billion. When Lawrence Lindsey, the president's chief economic adviser, said the war was likely to cost $100 billion to $200 billion, he was fired.

    Some in the White House tried to spread the fantasy that Iraqi oil revenues would pay for the war. Paul Wolfowitz, the former deputy defense secretary and a fanatical hawk, told Congress that Iraq was "a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

    The president and his hot-for-war associates were as wrong about the money as they were about the weapons of mass destruction.

    Now comes a study by Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist at Columbia University, and a colleague, Linda Bilmes of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, that estimates the "true costs" of the war at more than $1 trillion, and possibly more than $2 trillion.

    "Even taking a conservative approach and assuming all U.S. troops return by 2010, we believe the true costs exceed a trillion dollars," the authors say.

    The study was released earlier this year but has not gotten much publicity. The analysis by Professors Stiglitz and Bilmes goes beyond the immediate costs of combat operations to include other direct and indirect costs of the war that, in some cases, the government will have to shoulder for many years.

    These costs, the study says, "include disability payments to veterans over the course of their lifetimes, the cost of replacing military equipment and munitions, which are being consumed at a faster-than-normal rate, the cost of medical treatment for returning Iraqi war veterans, particularly the more than 7,000 [service members] with brain, spinal, amputation and other serious injuries, and the cost of transporting returning troops back to their home bases."

    The study also notes that Defense Department expenditures that were not directly appropriated for Iraq have grown by more than 5 percent since the war began. But a portion of that increase has been spent "on support for the war in Iraq, including significantly higher recruitment costs, such as nearly doubling the number of recruiters, paying recruitment bonuses of up to $40,000 for new enlistees and paying special bonuses and other benefits, up to $150,000 for current Special Forces troops that re-enlist."

    "Another cost to the government," the study says, "is the interest on the money that it has borrowed to finance the war."

    * * *

    Herbert goes on to point out that a stack of $1 trillion in mostly $1000 bills, such that 6 inches equalled $1 million, would reach about 95 miles high.

    Mariner
     
  3. theHawk
    Offline

    theHawk Registered Conservative

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    10,853
    Thanks Received:
    2,066
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Germany
    Ratings:
    +5,739
    So in other words most of this 'cost' of the war is being circulated right back into our own economy?
     
  4. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    Typical NYT's bullshit. First, this is not George W Bush's war -- it's the US's war whether or not YOU like it.

    Second, pointing out the obvious acieves exactly WHAT? The NYT is just trying to pick a scab and incite left wingnuts who believe they preach the Holy Gospel into a tizzy.

    Wars cost money. Always have, always will. Next .......
     
  5. trobinett
    Offline

    trobinett Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2004
    Messages:
    1,832
    Thanks Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arkansas, The Ozarks
    Ratings:
    +162
    Mariner, so its all about money now?

    I`m surprised you didn`t see right through the NYT article. If the left can`t
    drum up support for their broke dick platform one way, then they just fire up the press`s, and try a different track.

    Since when have the Dem`s ever been concerned about spending tax payer money?

    I don`t think what we are doing in our war against terror, is about MONEY, I think its about winning, and doing what everyone from the criminals at the United Nations on up, won`t do, FIGHT. :usa:
     

Share This Page