The three trillion dollar war

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

From The Times
February 23, 2008

The three trillion dollar war
The cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts have grown to staggering proportions

Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes

The Bush Administration was wrong about the benefits of the war and it was wrong about the costs of the war. The president and his advisers expected a quick, inexpensive conflict. Instead, we have a war that is costing more than anyone could have imagined.

The cost of direct US military operations - not even including long-term costs such as taking care of wounded veterans - already exceeds the cost of the 12-year war in Vietnam and is more than double the cost of the Korean War...

TimesonLine

Impeach the son of a Bush.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 492 • Replies: 11

No top replies

Who SHOULD be the President?
What makes you think this Administration is (or will) take care of the Veterans or even PLANNED to do so? They're failing that task miserably. They wouldn't even give them decent armor protection in their tanks or proper gear to PREVENT them from getting hurt in the first place.

Negative thinking and criticism is far too easy and accomplishes little more more than creation of heat where we need more light.

Never mind impeaching Bush as there has been talk of impeaching EVERY single President since I've been born (1950). Impeachment (and subsequent removal from Office) is a waste of time, resource and paralyzes or gov't for the duration. It's just a reflection of negativity.

How about finding a replacement in the Presidency that will do the RIGHT thing? What is the right course of action? Who is the candidate that will do the right thing? How do we get him/her elected?

0 Replies

Re: The three trillion dollar war

Zippo wrote:

From The Times
February 23, 2008

The three trillion dollar war
The cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts have grown to staggering proportions

Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes

The Bush Administration was wrong about the benefits of the war and it was wrong about the costs of the war. The president and his advisers expected a quick, inexpensive conflict. Instead, we have a war that is costing more than anyone could have imagined.

The cost of direct US military operations - not even including long-term costs such as taking care of wounded veterans - already exceeds the cost of the 12-year war in Vietnam and is more than double the cost of the Korean War...

TimesonLine

Impeach the son of a Bush.

Does the compared cost to Vietnam and Korea allow for the difference in what a dollar was worth then, and what a dollar is worth today? In other words, did this statistic account for inflation?

But, regardless, does this article quoted allude to some thought that the President should have gotten the war wholesale? Wars are only retail. Full price; especially if they are made in the United States, with United States personnel. There's no such thing as getting a war on the cheap. Some people just don't appreciate that this war is top of the line American.

Who would even want a war that's gotten on the cheap? Any war worth fighting, is a war worth spending top dollar. With all the discount stores these days, many people don't understand that quality costs.

0 Replies

Financial costs of conducting this war is almost a moot point and a whole other (side-)issue. How about understanding the real reason - the justification for us being there? What about morality of THIS war? what about the costs in world opinion...or tipping the balance of trade. How many nations are turning their backs permanently to USA and its allies.

We are coincidentally losing our standard of living while in the process of waging this war. Why not finally understand how our gov't REALLY works. It sure isn't acting in the best interests of the majority or even a plurality of its people.

No...the reason for committing our military to this strategic area was NOT the destruction of Iraq's WMD! That's a red herring -- just as fighting Communism (domino theory) was a red herring for the reasons LBJ and Nixon continued military pursuits in Vietnam.

The justification was then (as it is now) about plundering that area's resources and possibly winning over that area so USA would have strategic resources and for trade $$$ purposes. Like it or not we're in Iraq for oil and Afghanistan for its strategic location. Why hasn't bin Laden been caught by now? Can anyone honestly think that govt intelligence don't know where he is by now? He's being watched, and the powers-that-be are waiting on acting for some unknown reason, perhaps for prevention of further martyrdom...but I digress.

0 Replies

Ragman wrote:

The justification was then (as it is now) about plundering that area's resources and possibly winning over that area so USA would have strategic resources and for trade $$$ purposes. Like it or not we're in Iraq for oil and Afghanistan for its strategic location. Why hasn't bin Laden been caught by now? Can anyone honestly think that govt intelligence don't know where he is by now? He's being watched, and the powers-that-be are waiting on acting for some unknown reason, perhaps for prevention of further martyrdom...but I digress.

In my opinion if the above are actual reasons for the war, then you seem to have made a good argument for the war. If you want to view the war as the glass being half empty, don't think that is an objective truth. Some people view the war as the glass being half full. And don't forget, it's the only war we got. Take away this war, and its like closing hospitals just before a medical student becomes an intern.

0 Replies

Quote:

Take away this war, and its like closing hospitals just before a medical student becomes an intern.

Yea and success is just around the corner too.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Quote:
Take away this war, and its like closing hospitals just before a medical student becomes an intern.

Yea and success is just around the corner too.

Who said that was a goal?

0 Replies

Quote:

Who said that was a goal?

Success is not a goal of being in Iraq?

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Quote:
Who said that was a goal?

Success is not a goal of being in Iraq?

If you can have this conversation, of sorts, without defining "success" you're better than me. I don't want to define it, since I believe we all have our own definition of "success."

0 Replies

Success is certainly an issue that can be discussed but I'll leave that for others. How about the resultant conditions in USA and Iraq/Afghanistan (and Pakistan, too) after it's all over? How about the current and near-future impact on our nation and the welfare of its citizenry? Isn't that or shouldn't that be of highest importance?

0 Replies

Quote:

Take away this war, and its like closing hospitals just before a medical student becomes an intern.

An intern already has their medical degree but they obtain their training in a hospital before going on to practicing medicine on their own. We are not at that point where we have gotten a degree (continuing with the metaphor)in Iraq much less any where close to where we are about to be interns in a hospital much less "just before". This is why I replied with the over used saying of "success is just around the corner" in a sarcastic manner. And then you replied with a rather inane comment about who said success was a goal in Iraq. And now you come up with another inane response which makes no sense in the context of our conversation 'of sorts'.

Quote:

If you can have this conversation, of sorts, without defining "success" you're better than me. I don't want to define it, since I believe we all have our own definition of "success."

Success in Iraq at this point would be if all parties (including Kurdistan and Sunni insurgents) worked together in their own government for the good of the whole Iraq. We do not have this at this point nor are we close. We are just not quite at the nightmare of post 2006 when the Sunni insurgents blew up the Shiite Mosque and all hell broke loose. We have had some successes in other areas as well with some Sunni insurgents breaking away from the foreign AQ. However; there is a long way to go before Iraq can be a viable independent state able to sustain and govern itself and provide for its own security.

In the meanwhile; we are draining our own military resources; AQ is growing in other parts of the country; we are draining our economy and who know how long we would have to be there in order for Iraqis to be able to do everything themselves without us. How long can we continue to keep our military tied up in Iraq and continue to keep draining our economy? At what point will we be at the point where we are like interns in a hospital? At what point where Iraqis be doctors able to practice medicine on their own? Can we afford to sustain (military and economy) ourselves until the magic day happens? Can we afford to sustain ourselves if that day never happens?

0 Replies

Ragman wrote:

Success is certainly an issue that can be discussed but I'll leave that for others. How about the resultant conditions in USA and Iraq/Afghanistan (and Pakistan, too) after it's all over? How about the current and near-future impact on our nation and the welfare of its citizenry? Isn't that or shouldn't that be of highest importance?

So, now you've changed the topic? And then you are asking, "How about the current and near-future impact on our nation and the welfare of its citizenry?" O.K., how about it? What are you saying? Are you implying a negative or a positive?

0 Replies

The three trillion dollar war

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know