What the war in Iraq is costing us!

[Centurion]

We can debate the pros and cons of "acceptable" loss of life, and when do we reach the limit of where the loss of life becomes un-acceptable.

But, for the moment, remove the loss of life completely from the picture, and look at how much in actuall DOLLARS this war is costing the American taxpayer:

"The Pentagon has nearly doubled the estimated military cost of the war on Iraq to $US3.9billion
($5.9billion) a month as the former United States military commander for the country warned troop
levels would not be reduced "for the foreseeable future".
----
Summary of Iraq War Cost Estimates
CBO (Congressional Budget Office) estimates for the following costs of the Iraq war:

"Initial deployment of troops: $9 billion to $13 billion
Conducting the war: $6 billion to $9 billion per month
Returning forces to US: $5 billion to $7 billion

From the Congressional Budget Office

[Centurion]

So at this point, we've spent over $25 *BILLION* on this war (yet we don't have the money to fix our own electrical grids that just gave us the worst blackout in U.S. history).

Can we afford this war as it continues to grind on?

"Under the auspices of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, a group of distinguished scholars has
prepared a thoughtful research paper that tries to calculate the cost. They've come up with a wide
range -- from $99 billion under the most optimistic assumptions to a worst-case total of $1.9
trillion.

If the price of war in Iraq starts escalating, however, to $200 billion, $400 billion, $1 trillion,
how does the government propose to meet the tab? By borrowing and sending the budget deficit into
the stratosphere? By cutting government spending on just about everything else? By rescinding tax
cuts and maybe levying a surcharge on the wealthy? By depreciating the currency with that old
standby and enemy of the people, inflation?"

Business Week-Christoper Farrell

[theking]

Originally posted by Centurion
We can debate the pros and cons of "acceptable" loss of life, and when do we reach the limit of where the loss of life becomes un-acceptable.

But, for the moment, remove the loss of life completely from the picture, and look at how much in actuall DOLLARS this war is costing the American taxpayer:

"The Pentagon has nearly doubled the estimated military cost of the war on Iraq to $US3.9billion
($5.9billion) a month as the former United States military commander for the country warned troop
levels would not be reduced "for the foreseeable future".
----
Summary of Iraq War Cost Estimates
CBO (Congressional Budget Office) estimates for the following costs of the Iraq war:

"Initial deployment of troops: $9 billion to $13 billion
Conducting the war: $6 billion to $9 billion per month
Returning forces to US: $5 billion to $7 billion

From the Congressional Budget Office

Do you have a point to make or are you just posting information?

[Sly_RJ]

They should raise the monthly budget to $7B. Those soldiers deserve a nice glass of champagne every now and then!

[Centurion]

In an economy that is struggling to keep its head above water, where are we going to find the money to maintain just the CURRENT level of spending let alone any increase in spending in Iraq?

The American economy cannot sustain this level of spending while at the same time pull itself up by the bootstraps to get back to pre-recession levels.

This is what we have to look forward to (among many other negative issues) under 4 more years of Bush??

[Centurion]

Originally posted by theking


Do you have a point to make or are you just posting information?

Do you EVER have a point to make other than to continue showing us that you are a JACKASS?

[Sly_RJ]

I can't wait until the next war after Bush gets reelected. Apparently the economy will drop so everyone will be desperate for jobs, meaning cheaper blowjobs from hotter chicks!

[Corleone]

forward it to [email protected]

[Centurion]

Originally posted by Sly_RJ
They should raise the monthly budget to $7B. Those soldiers deserve a nice glass of champagne every now and then!

And they've cut the hazard pay the soldiers are receiving over there while telling them they will stay in Iraq for at least one year before being sent home. The first line of people that are getting the royal butt fuck are the G.I.s

[theking]

Originally posted by Centurion
In an economy that is struggling to keep its head above water, where are we going to find the money to maintain just the CURRENT level of spending let alone any increase in spending in Iraq?

The American economy cannot sustain this level of spending while at the same time pull itself up by the bootstraps to get back to pre-recession levels.

This is what we have to look forward to (among many other negative issues) under 4 more years of Bush??

One can pretty much assume that if President Bush is not re-elected the replacement...will be a Democrat. Do you have any predictions about what a Democratic President will do differently...other than raise taxes?

[theking]

Originally posted by Centurion


And they've cut the hazard pay the soldiers are receiving over there while telling them they will stay in Iraq for at least one year before being sent home. The first line of people that are getting the royal butt fuck are the G.I.s

When was the pay cut...provide a link please?

[theking]

Originally posted by Centurion


Do you EVER have a point to make other than to continue showing us that you are a JACKASS?

OK...I understand...you have no point...just posting information.

[Fletch XXX]

No one posted this yet?

http://www.costofwar.com

[broke]

I'm aware that the term 'marginal cost' is lost on most here.

Anyone care to fill me in on that number though?

[theking]

Originally posted by Centurion
In an economy that is struggling to keep its head above water, where are we going to find the money to maintain just the CURRENT level of spending let alone any increase in spending in Iraq?

The American economy cannot sustain this level of spending while at the same time pull itself up by the bootstraps to get back to pre-recession levels.

This is what we have to look forward to (among many other negative issues) under 4 more years of Bush??

During the Second World War we found the money to put 16 million people in uniform with less than half the current population...and fight a global war for four years...with a small percentage of our current GNP.

During Vietnam...Eisenhower was the first to send troops to Vietnam...and we found the money to sustain our involvement in Vietnam untill 1973 and rotated more than 3 million soldiers into and out of Vietnam.

Why would you think that we now cannot find the money to sustain a war against terrorism...in which Iraq is a strategic part of that war? A war that some in this Administration has stated will last as long as ten years...and others have stated as long as thirty years?

[broke]

Seriously what's the marginal cost?

For the dimwits out there that is cost on top of what would have been paid in excess of military pay, ammo, meals, lodging, et al.

[Centurion]

Originally posted by broke
Seriously what's the marginal cost?

For the dimwits out there that is cost on top of what would have been paid in excess of military pay, ammo, meals, lodging, et al.

The last figure I saw on that was something like 1-2 billion.

[Obie Trice]

The war is making some americans more patriotic only

Proof :

[Centurion]

Originally posted by theking


Why would you think that we now cannot find the money to sustain a war against terrorism...in which Iraq is a strategic part of that war? A war that some in this Administration has stated will last as long as ten years...and others have stated as long as thirty years?

There is so much wrong with your post, I'm not quite sure where to begin. But let's try:

1)Fast forward to the PRESENT! You are always fond of World War II examples, etc. That was over 60 years ago!
2)Our being in Iraq is because it's part of a war on "terrorism". Really? Dang convient how we've forgotten about those old wmds, saddams a bastard, mean to his people etc. All the experts said there were no ties to Al Quaeda BEFORE we attacked!

Why would I possibly THINK we may not be able to afford it?
Hmm..maybe because of a simple economics lesson: You can't pay/buy things if you don't have the money for it!

For you to say "OH we can stay there indefinitely spending whatever amount of money we need" is beyond naive, it's now downright stupidity!

If you fantasy thinking was true, man we could pay for a lot of things in THIS country!

[theking]

Originally posted by Centurion


There is so much wrong with your post, I'm not quite sure where to begin. But let's try:

1)Fast forward to the PRESENT! You are always fond of World War II examples, etc. That was over 60 years ago!

No. The point is valid...we found the money for a much greater effort during the Second World War...with a fraction of our current GNP...so we certainly can find the money in the current situation.

2)Our being in Iraq is because it's part of a war on "terrorism". Really? Dang convient how we've forgotten about those old wmds, saddams a bastard, mean to his people etc. All the experts said there were no ties to Al Quaeda BEFORE we attacked!

The answer is yes...the invasion and control of Iraq is an integral part of our war on terriosm...as it is a very important strategic piece of real estate. WMD's was only a part of the multiple reasons for the invasion of Iraq and was the public face put forward. al Quaeda is not the only terrorist org in the world and Saddam openly supported several terrorist orgs that frequently attack one of our allies.

Why would I possibly THINK we may not be able to afford it?
Hmm..maybe because of a simple economics lesson: You can't pay/buy things if you don't have the money for it!

We have done so in the past and we will continue to do so.

For you to say "OH we can stay there indefinitely spending whatever amount of money we need" is beyond naive, it's now downright stupidity!

We cannot afford not to?

If you fantasy thinking was true, man we could pay for a lot of things in THIS country!

Every Congress prioritizes...and it is the Congress that makes the budget.

[Centurion]

The King posted:
quote:
--------------------------------------------
Why would I possibly THINK we may not be able to afford it?
Hmm..maybe because of a simple economics lesson: You can't pay/buy things if you don't
have the money for it!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have done so in the past and we will continue to do so.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For you to say "OH we can stay there indefinitely spending whatever amount of money we need"
is beyond naive, it's now downright stupidity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We cannot afford not to?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you fantasy thinking was true, man we could pay for a lot of things in THIS country!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Every Congress prioritizes...and it is the Congress that makes the budget.


Last comment to you since you do love to make up unreal scenarios in your mind that you believe are true of the world.

You can't pay for everything if you don't have the money for it and you simply tell me: "We've done it before!"
Somehow..money to pay for things in this country has NEVER been an issue or problem! Jeezus..you do not grasp reality.

We can't stay in Iraq indefinitely: We can't afford not to? But you never tell us how the heck we're going to be able to afford to.

Then after going through this whole routine of "There's plenty of money, no problem"..the screeching breaks are put on spending suddenly because "Congress prioritizes". Why does Congress have to prioritize when you have pointed out several times that money IS NO ISSUE!?!?

[theking]

Originally posted by Centurion


Last comment to you since you do love to make up unreal scenarios in your mind that you believe are true of the world.

You can't pay for everything if you don't have the money for it and you simply tell me: "We've done it before!"
Somehow..money to pay for things in this country has NEVER been an issue or problem! Jeezus..you do not grasp reality.

We can't stay in Iraq indefinitely: We can't afford not to? But you never tell us how the heck we're going to be able to afford to.

Then after going through this whole routine of "There's plenty of money, no problem"..the screeching breaks are put on spending suddenly because "Congress prioritizes". Why does Congress have to prioritize when you have pointed out several times that money IS NO ISSUE!?!?

Here is a real scenario for you...that I believe to be true.

The Second World War ended 58 years ago...we have found the money to keep troops in Europe for 58 years...there are currently more troops in Europe that there are in Iraq.

The Second World War ended 58 years ago...we have found the money to keep troops in Asia for 58 years...there are currently almost as many troops in Asia as there are in Iraq.

I suggest to you that we will find the money to keep troops in Iraq for 58 years...if we deem it to be necessary...and it will probably be deemed necessary...as historically the US maintains forces in an AO once they have been initially introduced.

Congress has prioritized since the very first Congress...and will continue to do so...and to answer your question of "Why" because Congress deems it necessary to do so.

[Webby]

theking:

Dream on!

[Centurion]

Breaking my own rule not to respond to you anymore in this post:



Originally posted by theking


Here is a real scenario for you...that I believe to be true.

The Second World War ended 58 years ago...we have found the money to keep troops in Europe for 58 years...there are currently more troops in Europe that there are in Iraq.

WRONG! MANY MORE COMBAT TROOPS IN IRAQ THAN EUROPE!
COSTS MORE TO MAINTAIN THIS LEVEL OF COMBAT THAN PEACETIME EUROPE!
-------
The Second World War ended 58 years ago...we have found the money to keep troops in Asia for 58 years...there are currently almost as many troops in Asia as there are in Iraq.

WRONG! MANY MORE COMBAT TROOPS IN IRAQ THAN ASIA!
COSTS MORE TO MAINTAIN THIS LEVEL OF COMBAT THAN PEACETIME ASIA!
-----------

I suggest to you that we will find the money to keep troops in Iraq for 58 years...if we deem it to be necessary...and it will probably be deemed necessary...as historically the US maintains forces in an AO once they have been initially introduced.

SUGGESTIONS DON'T PAY FOR AMMO!



And just for the sake of argument..let's say you are RIGHT..that it costs more to maintain Euorpe AND Asia that it does currently in Iraq.

If that was true, over 50% of our total expenditures would go just for these 3 areas out of our entire budget.

Your world where there is unlimited money to finance whatever we deemed to be truely necessary does not exist.

[KRL]

The US Military cartel has always been the biggest scooper of taxpayer money.

Got to remember though, its just a redirection of money. Everything they spend it on pretty much comes back here for the military industrial mfg. sector of our economy, troops sending their money home, etc.

Whenever the economy of the US goes to hell, a war magically appears to kick things back into high gear.

[Centurion]

Originally posted by KRL
The US Military cartel has always been the biggest scooper of taxpayer money.

Got to remember though, its just a redirection of money. Everything they spend it on pretty much comes back here for the military industrial mfg. sector of our economy, troops sending their money home, etc.

That's somewhat true, but money to maintain run tanks, guns, rockets, airplanes, etc does NOT return to the U.S. And that by far is the biggest chunk of change we have to pay out.

[basschick]

the world war 2 examples are not relevant.

when i was a kid, minimum wage was under $2 and we bought a house in a good neighborhood for $32,000. my father earned about $20,000 as an engineer.

now minimum wage is $6 and that house sold for well over $500,000. and that job my father had now pays about $60,000.

wages have tripled from when i was a kid but housing has gone up 10 times or more. my point? that in world war 2 housing was cheaper by comparison to wages by a radical amount. when housing was 20-25% of the average person's salary, it was a lot easier for citizens to tighten their belts and minimize their spending. now a lot of people pay 50% of their wages to housing, there isn't much left to cut.

[Centurion]

Hey King!

Got a question for you this time:

1)If fighting terrorism is our #1 foreign domestic policy
and
2)We are fighting terrorism in Iraq
and
3)When it comes to fighting terrorism (as in Iraq), money is not an issue,

Then why are we spending LESS than $40 billion a year on HOMELAND SECURITY while we are already approaching $40 billion in Iraq?

"The Bush Administration's Budget for 2003 - the Federal government's first post-September 11 budget - reflects the emphasis now accorded to achieving a more secure homeland. The FY 2003 Budget directs $37.7 billion to homeland security, up from $19.5 billion in 2002. The budget supports four functional areas: supporting first responders to a terrorist attack; defending against bioterrorism; securing America's borders; and using 21st century technology to secure the homeland."

[theking]

Originally posted by Centurion
Breaking my own rule not to respond to you anymore in this post:



Originally posted by theking


Here is a real scenario for you...that I believe to be true.

The Second World War ended 58 years ago...we have found the money to keep troops in Europe for 58 years...there are currently more troops in Europe that there are in Iraq.

WRONG! MANY MORE COMBAT TROOPS IN IRAQ THAN EUROPE!
COSTS MORE TO MAINTAIN THIS LEVEL OF COMBAT THAN PEACETIME EUROPE!
-------
The Second World War ended 58 years ago...we have found the money to keep troops in Asia for 58 years...there are currently almost as many troops in Asia as there are in Iraq.

WRONG! MANY MORE COMBAT TROOPS IN IRAQ THAN ASIA!
COSTS MORE TO MAINTAIN THIS LEVEL OF COMBAT THAN PEACETIME ASIA!
-----------

I suggest to you that we will find the money to keep troops in Iraq for 58 years...if we deem it to be necessary...and it will probably be deemed necessary...as historically the US maintains forces in an AO once they have been initially introduced.

SUGGESTIONS DON'T PAY FOR AMMO!



And just for the sake of argument..let's say you are RIGHT..that it costs more to maintain Euorpe AND Asia that it does currently in Iraq.

If that was true, over 50% of our total expenditures would go just for these 3 areas out of our entire budget.

Your world where there is unlimited money to finance whatever we deemed to be truely necessary does not exist.

Actually...I am wrong...I forgot to take into consideration the million man reduction in forces the US has had over the past few years...a slip of mind that has changed the force level equation.

The USEUCOM area of responsibility (AOR) covers more than 21 million square miles and includes 93 countries and territories. Several other countries and territories are considered to be part of our area of interest (AOI).

Approximately 116,400 American soldier, sailors, airmen and Marines are permanently assigned in Europe, Africa and Asia as part of the United States European Command.

The information is from the Department of Defense.

http://www.defenselink.mil/

I did not immediately find a link for the number of forces in the Iraqi Theater but I think it is being reported at around 145,000.

Thus I repeat we have found the money to keep substantial numbers of forces in Europe and in Asia (during the Cold War the numbers were double or triple the current level) for more than fifty years...and in addition fight two major conflicts (Korea for three years and we were involved in Vietnam for fourteen years in total). Our GNP is bigger than it has ever been but yet you think that we cannot maintain forces in what has been...up to this point in time...a minor egagement.

I would be interested in what you think is an alternative...and what you think the next President will do (if Bush is not re-elected)?

[theking]

Originally posted by Centurion
Hey King!

Got a question for you this time:

1)If fighting terrorism is our #1 foreign domestic policy
and
2)We are fighting terrorism in Iraq
and
3)When it comes to fighting terrorism (as in Iraq), money is not an issue,

Then why are we spending LESS than $40 billion a year on HOMELAND SECURITY while we are already approaching $40 billion in Iraq?

"The Bush Administration's Budget for 2003 - the Federal government's first post-September 11 budget - reflects the emphasis now accorded to achieving a more secure homeland. The FY 2003 Budget directs $37.7 billion to homeland security, up from $19.5 billion in 2002. The budget supports four functional areas: supporting first responders to a terrorist attack; defending against bioterrorism; securing America's borders; and using 21st century technology to secure the homeland."

The budget is decided by the Congress...not the President...though the President can present his "ideal" budget to the Congress for consideration.

The Congress prioritizes and strikes what ever balance they in their "wisdom" deem appropriate.

You seem to have mis-comprehended once again...and keep insinuating that I have stated money is not an issue. Money has been an issue with every Congress since the very first Congress and yet for more than two hundred years we have engaged in multiple wars...we have had ups and downs in our economy...but the country has always done what it deems to be necessary...and will continue to do so. The end of the USA as a major economic and military power is not near though there are those that choose to think that...for whatever reasons they may have.

[wig]

What's funny is that all the ppl who whined about it all being for OIL before the war, have forgotten about it after the war.

Now it is costs?? Wake up! The US will not lose on this in the big picture.

Despite the costs associated with prior wars, The US has come out ahead economically. Even if you consider the ongoing costs in Europe and Asia, we are well ahead of the game.

"With victory comes the spoils!"

[Centurion]

Originally posted by theking


Actually...I am wrong...


Approximately 116,400 American soldier, sailors, airmen and Marines are permanently assigned in Europe, Africa and Asia as part of the United States European Command.

You dweeb! As I said before, these 116,400 soldiers are NOT in combat! Costs a HECKUVA lot more for COMBAT!

But you said those magic words I never thought I'd hear
"I am wrong."

Sigh...that alone made my day!

[Centurion]

Originally posted by theking


The budget is decided by the Congress...not the President...though the President can present his "ideal" budget to the Congress for consideration.

You seem to have mis-comprehended once again...and keep insinuating that I have stated money is not an issue.

You are nothing, if not consistent! Lie, change the subject, when you get cornered.

It's a republican congress and a republican pres! After 9/11 Bush could have asked for as much money as he wanted for homeland security and gotten it! So don't give me "It's the congress that decides the budget".

And yes, you have said all through your messages that when it comes to fighting terrorism in Iraq, money would never be a problem.

DWEEB DWEEB DWEEB!

[Centurion]

Originally posted by wig
What's funny is that all the ppl who whined about it all being for OIL before the war, have forgotten about it after the war.

Now it is costs?? Wake up! The US will not lose on this in the big picture.

Despite the costs associated with prior wars, The US has come out ahead economically. Even if you consider the ongoing costs in Europe and Asia, we are well ahead of the game.

"With victory comes the spoils!"

Ok wiseguy...tell me to date how much money the U.S. has made by selling Iraqi oil?

[Lonny]

don't know were broke

[Webby]

theking:

what you think the next President will do (if Bush is not re-elected)?

Just a quick comment - gotta go shortly.

First.. your post actually had some "content" in comparison with the trash usually on GFY.

On the "war" - "terrorism" is not a thing that can be handled by conventional forces alone since it stems from the beliefs of others. Ya can't control a mind or impose "values" on others.

You would probably agree, despite whatever billions are dumped into "Homeland Defence", that is not going to stop an attack. Attacks are "easy" in comparison to the cost/organisation of defence.

Places like Afghanistan, Iraq and that region have been fighting "wars" for centuries. Some of these people are "seasoned" vets at that game. They have "evicted" Russia and others before that.

The charicature of the "terrorist" is not often as it is portrayed. What is one man's "terrorist" is another's "freedom fighter". And loads of shades in between. (I can think of a few folks in the US who actually talk about "freedom" from the central govt - and, for some reason, use this as the basis for remaining armed!)

I suspect in the end - and that may come sooner than later - the US will, in some face-saving manner, gradually withdraw from Iraq and probably commit to more "actual" international help. I think it was a great mistake on the part of the current Admin to "go it alone" (despite the claimed "coalition of the willing"). To put both the people of Iraq and US soldiers into that war is .. unforgivable. Forget Saddam - he is not an "excuse" - there are plenty "Saddam's" in this world.

Bottom line? Sure would be nice to see the US govt attending to the people in the US and being actually committed to working with the international community on many issues as well as "terrorism". We may then see some real progress.

[jerryfan2000]

You let your goverment started the war. You people should absorb the consequence. You destroyed others power, water, schools...etc. And you must give everything back to Iraq people even you are going to spend trillion of dollars since you let it happened.

[HEARTBREAKER]

it has damaged so many (innocent) people lives.. money and time....
Mr. Kofi Anan should be responsible enough to help stop this war and just promote peace not war!

[Webby]

Centurion:

Ok wiseguy...tell me to date how much money the U.S. has made by selling Iraqi oil?

I think I got that in loose change

But.. on second thoughts.. it may be a few million in deficit!

[Centurion]

Originally posted by Webby
Centurion:



I think I got that in loose change

But.. on second thoughts.. it may be a few million in deficit!

Those damn Iraqi terrorists keep blowing up the pumps and settin em on fire before we can pump any of that black gold!

How's a person supposed to make a living at war if they keep that up?

Time to call and lodge a complaint with the Iraqi better business bureau!

[theking]

Originally posted by Centurion



You are nothing, if not consistent! Lie, change the subject, when you get cornered.

And yes, you have said all through your messages that when it comes to fighting terrorism in Iraq, money would never be a problem.

DWEEB DWEEB DWEEB!

You are the fucking liar...not I...post a quote where I ever said that money "would never be a problem". I said we will find the money to do what is deemed necessary. I have not lied and I have not changed the fucking subject...motherfucker. You read and do not comprehend and it is a major problem for you.

[Webby]

Centurion:

Time to call and lodge a complaint with the Iraqi better business bureau!

Dammit yeah! What's their number?

Shit .. that was bombed last week!

I have a friend who is currently assigned to the UN in Baghdad.. the last I heard was there is a growing feeling the Iraqi's don't want "occupation". But at the same time, they appeared willing to have international help. I ain't been able to contact lately.. no suprise! But heard from my friend's family he is OK... so expect some "grass roots" feedback again soon.

Apart from "terrorists" I think Iraqi's are getting impatient and this is begining to show. Tis a tense situation all round and could go either way.

[wig]

Originally posted by Centurion


Ok wiseguy...tell me to date how much money the U.S. has made by selling Iraqi oil?

Look, guy... The race is not over. Why do you want to judge it now? Because it supports your ideological position?

What is so hard about seeing the big picture? Why do you question thekings citing of history and dismiss it as irrelevant, but offer no other evidence except your opinion.

What part about history do you not get or see as a potential guide?

Do you think that we have not reaped economic gains from Germany and Japan?

You may be right, and Iraq may turn out to be a losing economic situation. But, you are speculating and offering no alternative theory, just criticism. History is also not on your side.

But I forgot, you are the clever person who stated...

"Why would I possibly THINK we may not be able to afford it?
Hmm..maybe because of a simple economics lesson: You can't pay/buy things if you don't have the money for it!"

I guess you have never had a mortgage or a car loan or a line of credit or even any credit card debt????

I don't know where you studied economics. I'd get my money back.

[Joe Average]

Originally posted by jerryfan2000
You let your goverment started the war. You people should absorb the consequence. You destroyed others power, water, schools...etc. And you must give everything back to Iraq people even you are going to spend trillion of dollars since you let it happened.

Fuck yes, the USA should pay for everything they destroyed to be rebuilt and then say sorry to the Iraqi people before leaving forever.

[Fletch XXX]

i am very sorry to the iraqi people.

america is burning in its own shame and disgrace.

there is no more honor to spill for your bible.

[Rochard]

Originally posted by Joe Average


Fuck yes, the USA should pay for everything they destroyed to be rebuilt and then say sorry to the Iraqi people before leaving forever.

Sure.

But first Iraq needs to repay the billions in fuckng damages it did to Kuwait.

Think about it. Iraq invaded Kuwait without reason, took what ever they fucking wanted, raped the women, burned the oil wells to the ground, and then fled in fucking cars they fucking stole.

You can't put a price on this. We are already rebuilding Iraq. Get the fuck over it.

[Webby]

Fletch XXX:

i am very sorry to the iraqi people.

Fletch... I've heard some actual stories from one guy "on the ground" there.. and have to say it is damned pityful. Not many in the western world could even begin to comprehend. I also heard a couple about young US guys (literally kids) in the forces there - equally bad news.

I have no sympathy for anyone who decieved the US people and engaged in this war which has killed many - on both sides - and caused innocent people to starve. And it still continues.. sad shit.

[tonkagunner]

wars are expensive and have bankrupted countries. Right now, US dollar isn't worth too much. Public debt per capita is around $30K per every human in this country. That includes babies too. Add state/local debt to that plus personal debts and it doesn't look too good.

The thing that we still have going for us is that lots of other countries have crappy currencies too which makes ours look a little better.

[fiveyes]

The sad truth of the matter:

There is always enough money for war, but never enough for peace.

[Centurion]

Originally posted by wig


Look, guy... The race is not over. Why do you want to judge it now? Because it supports your ideological position?

Do you think that we have not reaped economic gains from Germany and Japan?

You may be right, and Iraq may turn out to be a losing economic situation. But, you are speculating and offering no alternative theory, just criticism. History is also not on your side.

I guess you have never had a mortgage or a car loan or a line of credit or even any credit card debt????

I don't know where you studied economics. I'd get my money back.

Go to jail..go DIRECTLY to jail..do NOT pass go..do not collect $200 or even 2 cents!

This thread is about how much the war is costing the American taxpayer. You pipe up with "But we've got their oil!" and I asked a simple question: How much money have we made from selling Iraqi oil?

Instead of answering you talk about a "race" (RACE?), join King in fond memories of how we rebuilt Germany & Japan (50 years ago..and they were educated industrialized western countries, not a poor backward country with no infrastructure.)

Then you talked about a CAR LOAN? Geez..is there a nice International Househould Finance were the U.S. can get an interest free loan to pay for all of this?

My point, and this thread's point is that we are throwing money down a rathole in Iraq that we can ill afford to spend right now or continue spending for any indefinite period.