CostOfWar.com - putting things in perspective

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Continous update on the current costs of the war on Iraq.

 

As the site says: In April, 2003 an intergenerational team of Niko Matsakis of Boston, MA and Elias Vlanton of Takoma Park, MD created costofwar.com. After maintaining it on their own for the first year, they gave it to the National Priorities Project to contribute to their ongoing educational efforts.

 

NPP's latest publication shows how the average household's tax dollars are spent for every state and 193 cities, towns and counties.

 

Instead [of going to war with Iraq], we could have fully funded global anti-hunger efforts for 7 years.

 

Instead, we could have ensured that every child in the world was given basic immunizations for 56 years.

 

Hang on.. So these supporters of ours who praise the war on Iraq because it made life so much better for those inhabitants of the country are saying that we could instead have immunized every kid in the world the next half century?! Or fully funded anti-world hunger for half a decade?! And that wouldn't have taken a hundred thousand lives either, now would it?

 

Bush-kissers, explain yourselves, if you will.

 

Source:

Congressional Estimates

[The Hidden One]

These facts don't even look accurate. The cost of war doesn't shoot that fast up for God's sake. And let me ask you this, what would Kerry have done better? Bush was thinking about the world's future when he made the descision to go to more. If Saddam or Osama or North Korea aren't stopped we all know they would have starrted a catastrophic nuclear war.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by The Hidden One

If Saddam or Osama or North Korea aren't stopped we all know they would have starrted a catastrophic nuclear war.

The only listed party in your post that has nuclear weapons is North Korea, and they don't seem willing to launch a full scale nuclear assault.

[kipperthefrog]

Originally posted by The Hidden One

These facts don't even look accurate. The cost of war doesn't shoot that fast up for God's sake.

 

Want a Second opinion?

 

 

Clicky

 

Clicky

 

And all theese should inspere you.

 

Clicky

 

they all agree that it cost $100 billion - $200 Billion. that it will reach at least $200 billion by this year.

 

what would Kerry have done better?

 

He would have put people to work. he would have made decent paying jobs. then people would be able to buy more things and pay more taxes and the government would have got more money. remember when FDR was presedent, people were jumping out of windows becuase the lost everything in the stock market crash? he put people to work on parks to get the economy going. He got us out of the depression good enugh to survive WW II.

 

Same with today. if you want to boost the economy, $100,000 tax breaks to the rich and $300 tax breacks to the rest of us won't cut it. put people to work.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I wrote a reply and tried to submit it, but I got a database error, so I'm forced to re-write this whole thing:mad:.

And let me ask you this, what would Kerry have done better?

I'm sick of hearing that argument.

What if Kerry would've done equally bad? Does that make Bush's job better? Does it mean that whatever Bush does is necessarily right? Don't think so.

 

Bush was thinking about the world's future when he made the descision to go to more

I assume you mean "go to war";)?

 

Hardly. Who would the Iraqis attack? Saudi-Arabia? Never mind that Saudi-Arabia contributed tens of million dollars and 15 of the 19 hijackers of 9/11 (LA Times) and thus shouldn't be protected in the first place as they pose a bigger threat to America than Iraq ever could have, if you look at it from a "terrorism funding=danger" point of view.

 

Half of Iraq was a no-fly-zone patrolled by US airplanes. Iraq was bombed on a weekly basis from the first Gulf War up to the second one. The Iraqi army was decimated, primitive, and in poor repair (which was proven when the US invaded in Operation Iraqi "Freedom"). Saddam had to sleep in a different place every night out of fear of assassination. Fact it: He couldn't have invaded his own backyard, much less Saudi-Arabia or Turkey or another neighbouring country. And he certainly was no threat to "the entire world", contrary to what certain conservatives like(d) to believe.

 

In fact, it's an interesting contradiction that some of the same people who said we needed to invade Iraq due to it being such a threat scoffed at anti-war peoples' concerns of American losses by saying "heh, the Republican Army sucks, it'll surrender when it sees us".

 

Not to mention the UN contradiction: "The Iraqis broke UN Regulations by having WMDs, and yes, we can invade them for that as the USA's a sovereign nations and sovereign nations don't need to listen to foreigners or the UN!":D. Easily my favourite Republican contradiction.

 

I don' think Bush cared less about "the future of the world" when he invaded Iraq. If he cared about the safety of people in the world, he'd have spent money and resources on programs designed to prevent massacres and violence abroad and in the USA. He could've made life safer for a lot of people in the world without invading a nation and causing untold thousands of deaths.

 

If it was about fighting terrorism, he'd have done better in Afghanistan (what about not waiting two whole months and then sending only a very small force in?), and he'd certainly have done something about Saudi-Arabia. Granted, the House of Saud has a close, close, intimate friendship with the Bush family, but home land security should come first, should it not?

 

But of course, just about every argument against Operation Iraqi "Freedom" has been shot down in the "WMDs - Weapons of Mass Deception" thread, so I'm really just wasting my time here.

 

If Saddam or sama or North Korea aren't stopped we all know they would have starrted a catastrophic nuclear war.

First of all, Saddam didn't even have nuclear weapons. And Kim Jong-Il and his party shows no sign of wanting to use their newly-acquired munitions. And Usama was nowhere near nuclear capability. So I don't know what you're getting at.

[The Hidden One]

And he certainly was no threat to "the entire world", contrary to what certain conservatives like(d) to believe.

 

What are you talking about? Remember when he released VX Nerve Gas on his own people? Doesn't that say somehting to you?

 

 

First of all, Saddam didn't even have nuclear weapons. And Kim Jong-Il and his party shows no sign of wanting to use their newly-acquired munitions. And Usama was nowhere near nuclear capability. So I don't know what you're getting at.

 

You actually believe he's not hiding nuclear weapons or nuclear material capable of being made into nuclear bombs? And what about all those sites the Iraqis, Iranians didn't let the UN inspectors investigate> WHat do you think there hiding there, kill Saddam pins?

[Tyrion]

Originally posted by The Hidden One

These facts don't even look accurate. The cost of war doesn't shoot that fast up for God's sake. And let me ask you this, what would Kerry have done better? Bush was thinking about the world's future when he made the descision to go to more. If Saddam or Osama or North Korea aren't stopped we all know they would have starrted a catastrophic nuclear war.

 

Sure, we pretty much made sure Iraq will have no WMD's for a very long time. But in doing so, we proved that those countries which do have WMD's we'll not attack (Iran, North Korea) and that ultimately to be spared our wrath it'd be wise for countries to develop those nuclear weapons.

 

So yeah, we may have failed in that department...

 

You actually believe he's not hiding nuclear weapons or nuclear material capable of being made into nuclear bombs? And what about all those sites the Iraqis, Iranians didn't let the UN inspectors investigate> WHat do you think there hiding there, kill Saddam pins?

 

Contary to popular belief, you need rather modern and large, static labs to produce an effective nuclear bomb. The best Osama could've done is make a dirty bomb or buy one from the black market (supposedly there's a few due to the collaspe of the Soviet Union.)

[Mike Windu]

Here, let me help you understand something.

 

Speculation is not enough drive to wage war against another country.

 

 

 

Sure, Bush had evidence, but 1-2 years into the war, it was released that his evidence was inaccurate.

 

Gee, that seems like a waste... but wait, didn't he liberate thousands of Iraqis while at the same time increasing the standard of living for said Iraqis?

 

But wait... let's look at the process... thousands of innocents killed, terrorist insurgency raised *, cities in shambles...

 

Terrorist insurgency raised - This means that for every supposed terrorist Bush captures/kills/maims, he kills innocents in the process. Probably doesn't float well with the Iraqi people does it? After all, if a policeman has to shoot 12 other people to get 1, that doesn't seem right... It also inspires hatred towards U.S., the same hatred that drives terrorist agendas.

 

Cause think about it. They're killing innocents while killing terrorists. Wouldn't that make you hate America? Wouldn't that possibly drive someone to join the terrorists?

 

"Planting the seeds of terrorism" -----^

 

But continuing on the speculation aspect:

 

You actually believe he's not hiding nuclear weapons or nuclear material capable of being made into nuclear bombs? And what about all those sites the Iraqis, Iranians didn't let the UN inspectors investigate> WHat do you think there hiding there, kill Saddam pins?

 

Let's say I have an ex-weapons warehouse/peanut butter factory run by Saddam. You ask to inspect it. I refuse. Does that automatically mean I store WMDS in there?

 

No.

 

 

 

 

It's MY peanut butter

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by The Hidden One

These facts don't even look accurate. The cost of war doesn't shoot that fast up for God's sake.

 

So I'm assuming you've done a cost analysis of the costs of war yourself? Or at least have a study done by a credible researcher who can prove otherwise?

 

Consider the fact that current Patriot Missles cost 2 - 3 million dollars EACH, and we fired how many in the very first days of the war?

 

I don't think that cost is unreasonable at all.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by The Hidden One

You actually believe he's not hiding nuclear weapons or nuclear material capable of being made into nuclear bombs?

The weapons in question are much too large to have been hidden as fast as people claim.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

What are you talking about? Remember when he released VX Nerve Gas on his own people? Doesn't that say somehting to you?

That does not make him a "threat to the whole world". The US Government has killed untold thousands of innocents and overthrown several democracies on their own (Chile, 1973 being just one example). Does that make them a "threat to the whole world"?

 

I'm not denying that Saddam was evil. But that doesn't make him a threat to the whole world. Why would he hurt, say, Iceland, for example?

 

You actually believe he's not hiding nuclear weapons or nuclear material capable of being made into nuclear bombs?

1. If he had them, why didn't he use them to save himself when he was attacked? All you Republicans had been spending vast amounts of sweat, money, and time telling us he'd love nothing more than to wipe out the whole Western world with his infamous ghost WMDs.

2. If he has them, where the Heck are they now? These sites of yours that allegedly contained WMDs contained nothing of the sort when the Coalition reached them.

 

And what about all those sites the Iraqis, Iranians didn't let the UN inspectors investigate> WHat do you think there hiding there, kill Saddam pins?

And just how on Earth am I supposed to know? It just so happens that as neither you or I worked for the Baath party, neither of us know.

 

But it's pure speculation when you say there were WMDs in there.

[Spider AL]

The US Government has killed untold thousands of innocents and overthrown several democracies on their own (Chile, 1973 being just one example). Does that make them a "threat to the whole world"?

Yep, pretty much.

[toms]

You know, if i had WMDs the only real time i'd consider using them would be when my back was against the wall and i was about to die/be captured.

 

Yet oddly many people seem to believe that Saddam spent all that time and money developing WMDs just so that, when he really needed them, he could sneak them into a neighbouring country and hide them where they would be of no use to him whatsoever. And then hide in a hole.

 

It'd be like, if america invaded north korea, the koreans deciding to launch their nuclear weapons into space where the US couldn't find them and then hide in big cardboard boxes.... rather than, you know, actually using the weapons they had developed in defence.

 

---------

 

As for Iraq blocking weapons inspections - that is a fallacy. They only blocked about 5% of inspections, and those were all of presidential palaces/government offices. And the reason they gave for blocking those was that they thought the CIA had spys within the weapons inspection teams and was using them to spy on the iraqi regime.

 

And we now know that the CIA had spys in the weapons inspection teams and was using them to spy on the iraqi regime. So it turns out that

 

(a) the iraqis were right, and therefore justified in refusing admitance to the teams.

(b) the iraqis had better intelligence than we did (not that that is hard)

and

© by placing CIA operatives in a supposedly impartial UN team the US were the ones that undermined the UN's efforts to find a peaceful solution.

 

----

 

You know what... ending world hunger might have created a few less terrorists than killing a lot of innocent civilians too... but what do i know...

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Yep, pretty much.

I should've known better than to ask those questions with Spider Al in residence:p.

 

It'd be like, if america invaded north korea, the koreans deciding to launch their nuclear weapons into space where the US couldn't find them and then hide in big cardboard boxes.... rather than, you know, actually using the weapons they had developed in defence.

Or like me carrying pepper spray (I don't, but whatever), which is against the law here in Norway, which means that when I think someone's stalking me to beat me up or rob me I hurriedly throw the spray canister away.

 

Does that really make any sense whatsoever to you?

 

You know what... ending world hunger might have created a few less terrorists than killing a lot of innocent civilians too.

Indeed. Right now 1,6 billion people can't have a glass of water a day. Quite a few thirsty people, no;)?

[kipperthefrog]

The Irony of all this is, is that Hitler , too claimed to "liberate" whatever contries he invaded. Used the viciosness of his enemies to justify his own.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Don't use the Hitler card, Kipper;)

 

Nope, hardly the first time someone's scared the people into accepting a war. Hitler wasn't the first one either, you know.

[Mike Windu]

Originally posted by kipperthefrog

The Irony of all this is, is that Hitler , too claimed to "liberate" whatever contries he invaded. Used the viciosness of his enemies to justify his own.

 

 

Good job.

 

Next time, use a better than arguement than Hitler...

[kipperthefrog]

Originally posted by Mike Windu

 

Good job.

 

Next time, use a better than arguement than Hitler...

 

what is so bad about it? What is so wrong wit the so called Hitler card. Would you prefer to repeat the mistakes of the past?

[Spider AL]

Kipper has a point.

 

I mean "pulling the hitler card" tends to mean equating something unrelated to nazism... to nazism. Like saying "vegetarianism is bad because hitler was vegetarian".

 

But saying "Someone invading foreign countries is like Hitler or the nazis invading foreign countries" is pretty applicable. I wouldn't call it "playing the Hitler card".

[kipperthefrog]

Thanks Spider:D !

[Mike Windu]

Originally posted by Spider AL

Kipper has a point.

 

I mean "pulling the hitler card" tends to mean equating something unrelated to nazism... to nazism. Like saying "vegetarianism is bad because hitler was vegetarian".

 

But saying "Someone invading foreign countries is like Hitler or the nazis invading foreign countries" is pretty applicable. I wouldn't call it "playing the Hitler card".

 

I would.

 

Pulling Hitler out to show how "evil" something may be = cardage

 

what is so bad about it? What is so wrong wit the so called Hitler card. Would you prefer to repeat the mistakes of the past?

 

It is bad when Hitler is used to justify any kind of action that one may deem "evil", "bad", etc.

 

And speaking of mistakes from the past...

 

Here is MORE food for thought.

Hitler was pro choice...

 

(read the most of the document before commenting.)

 

Remember that little gem? That's from the abortion thread.

 

Hitler loved his dog.

 

Food for thought.

 

Ah yes...

[lukeiamyourdad]

No country is stupid enough to actually nuke the US of A.

 

They'll know they'll be nuked to oblivion. The US has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. It has the ability to annihilate all life on Earth, but sure, let's nuke them and give them a reason to nuke us back.

 

Kim Jon Il is hardly stupid.

[The Hidden One]

Kim Jon Il is hardly stupid.

 

I woudn't say that. There are some extremley crazy people out there. But your probaly right.

[kipperthefrog]

Originally posted by Mike Windu

 

And speaking of mistakes from the past...

 

 

 

Remember that little gem? That's from the abortion thread.

 

 

 

Ah yes...

 

That crap has nothing to do with the war in Iraq

[Dagobahn Eagle]

That crap has nothing to do with the war in Iraq

But with the Hitler card, yes.

 

Can we get back on topic now, please?