How would you spend your $3,415? [Iraq war]

CptStern

suckmonkey
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
10,303
Reaction score
62
This article is a bit dated but it sheds a light on the actual cost of the war in Iraq. It cost the average american household $3,415 to occupy Iraq for a total of 151.1 billion dollars over the last fiscal year. Another $60 billion has been allocated for after the election

151.1 billion could have paid for:

health care for over 27 million uninsured Americans
salaries for nearly 3 million elementary school teachers
678,200 new fire engines
over 20 million Head Start slots for children
health care coverage for 82 million children


other facts on the cost of war:

cost to americans:

U.S. military casualties (wounded and killed) stand at a monthly average of 747 since the "transition" June 28, 2004

About 64 percent of the more than 7,000 U.S. soldiers injured in Iraq received wounds that prevented them from returning to duty

in July 2004 that 1 in 6 soldiers returning from war in Iraq showed signs of post-traumatic stress disorder, major depression, or severe anxiety.


cost to iraqis:

September 22, 2004, between 12,800 and 14,843 Iraqi civilians have been killed as a result of the U.S. invasion and ensuing occupation, while an estimated 40,000 Iraqis have been injured. During "major combat" operations, between 4,895 and 6,370 Iraqi soldiers and insurgents were killed.

Violent deaths rose from an average of 14 per month in 2002 to 357 per month in 2003.

A poll conducted by the Iraq Center for Research and Strategic Studies in June 2004 found that 80 percent of Iraqis believe that coalition forces should leave either immediately or directly after the election.

While the Bush administration now claims that unemployment has dropped, the U.S. is only employing 120,000 Iraqis, of a workforce of 7 million, in reconstruction projects.

In addition to the widely publicized humiliation and torture of prisoners, abuse has been widespread throughout the post-9-11 military operations, with over 300 allegations of abuse in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantánamo. As of mid-August 2004, only 155 investigations into the existing 300 allegations had been completed.


source
 
I don't really like 'statistics' posts, because bushists will always find a way around it!

OMGZ J00 DON'T UNDERSTANDZZZ!!1111 SADDAM IS TEH MURDERER TITCTAT0RZ HE K!LLED THOUSANDZ !!111
 
hasan said:
I don't really like 'statistics' posts, because bushists will always find a way around it!

OMGZ J00 DON'T UNDERSTANDZZZ!!1111 SADDAM IS TEH MURDERER TITCTAT0RZ HE K!LLED THOUSANDZ !!111

Hehe, I pity the naive that actually think ANY country would start a 150 billion dollar war to "free the people" from some random dictator of which there are a dozen others.
And before you say it, no America didn't participate in WW2 just because they felt so sorry for us, it had huge economical and strategic effects (no disrespect to the many brave soldiers that fought in it of course, just talking about the intentions here).
 
90% of the costs 90% of the casulties.

But the other 10% gets shafted to the UK. :|
 
Thats why ima be voting for the "man of the night" Michael Howard.
 
I would have used it to save 25 million people from a brutal dictator. Its the American way, and it should be the UN's way as well.


Mission accomplished.

PS- Those numbers are BS.
 
"omgz J00 Don't Understandzzz!!1111 Saddam Is Teh Murderer Titctat0rz He K!lled Thousandz !!111"
 
^Ben said:
"omgz J00 Don't Understandzzz!!1111 Saddam Is Teh Murderer Titctat0rz He K!lled Thousandz !!111"

Its not even humorous that someone can joke about this. As sad as it is, he did murder hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Its sad that you arent mature enough to realize this. Maybe someday...
 
seinfeldrules said:
Its not even humorous that someone can joke about this. As sad as it is, he did murder hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Its sad that you arent mature enough to realize this. Maybe someday...

Like I said above, do you honestly believe they started this war because of the poor people?

The war was initially started because 'Saddam was a threat to the world with his WMD's', that turned out blatantly false. Now it's 'Saddam was an evil dictator OMGWTF!!~!1'

There are plenty of dictatorships they don't or didn't give a rat's ass about. But all of a sudden they decided to remove some random dictator out of power for no particular reason?
 
seinfeldrules said:
I would have used it to save 25 million people from a brutal dictator. Its the American way, and it should be the UN's way as well.

The UN doesn't wage war, especially if said war is illegal in every imaginable way. Why haven't you invaded countries like North Korea and Russia, though? You could liberate them.

The US is hardly a shining example of democracy or human rights, anyway.
 
PvtRyan said:
Like I said above, do you honestly believe they started this war because of the poor people?

The war was initially started because 'Saddam was a threat to the world with his WMD's', that turned out blatantly false. Now it's 'Saddam was an evil dictator OMGWTF!!~!1'

There are plenty of dictatorships they don't or didn't give a rat's ass about. But all of a sudden they decided to remove some random dictator out of power for no particular reason?

I never said that we started this war solely because of humanitarian reasons. Also, I never used this internet talk (omgwtflol), the only people in this thread to do so have been on your side. Suprising? I dont think so. It only helps to prove my point. We cant go in and remove every dictator, that is where we need the UN's help. Where are they now? Just because Saddam might not have had WMD doesnt take away from the pain he caused. You are too blinded by political bias to realize this.
 
"You are too blinded by political bias to realize this."

And you are a shining example of being unbiased.
 
Spartan said:
The UN doesn't wage war, especially if said war is illegal in every imaginable way. Why haven't you invaded countries like North Korea and Russia, though? You could liberate them.

The US is hardly a shining example of democracy or human rights, anyway.

What about in Korea? The UN was founded to prevent a Hitler type figure from rising again. Look at Iraq (pre invasion), North Korea, Sudan, and many other countries. They have failed in so many ways.
 
^Ben said:
"You are too blinded by political bias to realize this."

And you are a shining example of being unbiased.

Never said I wasnt unbiased, it doesnt mean I wont say something like "John Kerry wasnt in Vietnam just because he lied about spending XMass in Cambodia". That is what you are doing "Saddam didnt have WMD, so that means the hundreds of thousands he killed, didnt really die".
 
seinfeldrules said:
What about in Korea? The UN was founded to prevent a Hitler type figure from rising again. Look at Iraq (pre invasion), North Korea, Sudan, and many other countries. They have failed in so many ways.

The UN can't wage war because it doesn't have an army. And bombing a country flat is possibly the worst way of making changes, as seen in Iraq.
 
seinfeldrules said:
I would have used it to save 25 million people from a brutal dictator. Its the American way, and it should be the UN's way as well.


Mission accomplished.

ahahahahah ...mission accomplished? please you dont actually believe the US did this for the "good" of iraqis:

"September 22, 2004, between 12,800 and 14,843 Iraqi civilians have been killed as a result of the U.S. invasion and ensuing occupation, while an estimated 40,000 Iraqis have been injured. During "major combat" operations, between 4,895 and 6,370 Iraqi soldiers and insurgents were killed."


or how about this:

"Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it. "


did you fail to see this:

"Violent deaths rose from an average of 14 per month in 2002 to 357 per month in 2003"


seinfeldrules said:
PS- Those numbers are BS.

prove it, dont just dismiss it without any proof, that'd make you an ignorant fool
 
seinfeldrules said:
What about in Korea? The UN was founded to prevent a Hitler type figure from rising again. Look at Iraq (pre invasion), North Korea, Sudan, and many other countries. They have failed in so many ways.

I assume the opposite of failing is bombing the country flay, destroying its infrastructure, killing tens of thousands and creating a generally more hazardous environment? Yeah I guess the UN failed.
 
CptStern said:
or how about this:

"Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it. "


did you fail to see this:

"Violent deaths rose from an average of 14 per month in 2002 to 357 per month in 2003"

Now you are complaining to be complaining. Those quotes were before the Iraq conflict.

It's like a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario you have just given.

Would you like another 500,000 children to die if the sanctions were in place another couple of years? That number could even go higher the longer the sanctions were in place. How long is status quo the best choice? You don't seem happy with any of the choices that the US has done to Iraq. Mind you, we can't change the past!

:)
 
blahblahblah said:
Now you are complaining to be complaining. Those quotes were before the Iraq conflict.

the point is that the decision to invade had nothing to do with the welfare of iraqis

blahblahblah said:
It's like a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario you have just given.

kind of like Rwanda? sudan? Haiti? etc etc etc?

blahblahblah said:
Would you like another 500,000 children to die if the sanctions were in place another couple of years? That number could even go higher the longer the sanctions were in place. How long is status quo the best choice? You don't seem happy with any of the choices that the US has done to Iraq. Mind you, we can't change the past!

:)

it didnt have to happen now did it? if the US hadnt supported saddam for all those years none of this would have been necessary, some other minor despot would have overthrown him had he not had US support for over 2 decades. Had the US never supplied Saddam with WMD he wouldnt have used them on iranians and kurds ..it's all a viscious circle that is doomed to repeat itself with the newest despot: Iyad allawi, Prime Minister of Iraq
 
CptStern said:
it didnt have to happen now did it? if the US hadnt supported saddam for all those years none of this would have been necessary, some other minor despot would have overthrown him had he not had US support for over 2 decades. Had the US never supplied Saddam with WMD he wouldnt have used them on iranians and kurds ..it's all a viscious circle that is doomed to repeat itself with the newest despot: Iyad allawi, Prime Minister of Iraq

I said the past can't be changed, yet you keep regurgitating it. What is it, continued sanctions and 500,000 deaths or war and 100,000 Iraqi's and US soldiers killed?
 
blahblahblah said:
I said the past can't be changed, yet you keep regurgitating it. What is it, continued sanctions and 500,000 deaths or war and 100,000 Iraqi's and US soldiers killed?


hmmm how about minding your own business and not getting involved? or was that never been an option as it has been for more deserving countries such as rwanda sudan etc etc
 
seinfeldrules said:
Never said I wasnt unbiased, it doesnt mean I wont say something like "John Kerry wasnt in Vietnam just because he lied about spending XMass in Cambodia". That is what you are doing "Saddam didnt have WMD, so that means the hundreds of thousands he killed, didnt really die".

Maybe you missed the point. Any future deaths by Saddam's command would never have been prevented if the US didn't think he was a threat to the US. If there was no trumped-up WMD evidence, and no exaggerated ties to Al-Queda, your taxpayer dollars would not have saved a single iraqi.

Sure, saving lives is good. But in this case the saving was a side-effect. A byproduct of a systematic series of massive lies and mistakes. Don't talk about how iraqis were saved when the only reason salvation was allowed to occur was as a clause attached to US self-preservation.

Yes, tens of thousands of civilians were killed by Saddam over the course of his rule. Almost fifteen thousand were killed by US forces over the last two years. That's five world trade centers. It's also two or three times more than the last big massacre Saddam commited in 1991.
How many need to die before it stops being a rescue operation?

It's recently been announced that there are twice as many insurgents than was previously thought. It turns out that they are getting massive amounts of funding, probably from Al-Queda-sympathetic extremists and/or Al-Queda itself.

This was not a war on Saddam's evil. It was a war on terrorism against the US, it was initiated against a country that posed absolutely no threat, and it has created a net gain of terrorists.

Mission Accomplished my ass. The war in Iraq is about as accomplished as my pop music career.
 
CptStern said:
hmmm how about minding your own business and not getting involved? or was that never been an option as it has been for more deserving countries such as rwanda sudan etc etc

I'm sure you have mentioned before that the US is such a large country and should help other nations. Isn't that contradictory in nature. I'm sure every other industrialized nation in the world, will still be angry at the US if the US adopted an isolationist policy.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Thank-you come again. :laugh:

Mechagodzilla said:
Mission Accomplished my ass. The war in Iraq is about as accomplished as my pop music career.

'Oh Mecha, you roxor me. Such a talented pop musician. Can I have your autograph and some pixs, please? kbyethx
 
That would be difficult to provide over the internet, so instead here's a live performance of my hit cover of Whitney Houston's love theme from The Bodyguard

And IIIIIIII...
Will always love yooooooooouuu
IIIIIII...
Will always love yooooooooooou
You, ooooooooooh

[Instrumental/Sax solo]

And IIIIIIIII...
Will always love yooooooouuu
IIIIIIIIIIII...
Will always love yoooooooooouuu
[Repeat]

Thanks, you've been a great audience. :monkee:
 
New article on this subject:

Increase in war funding sought
Bush to seek another $70 billion for Iraq, Afghanistan
The Bush administration intends to seek about $70 billion in emergency funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan early next year, pushing total war costs close to $225 billion since the invasion of Iraq early last year, Pentagon and congressional officials said yesterday.

The new numbers underscore that the war is going to be far more costly and intense, and last longer, than the administration first suggested

In making cost estimates for the supplemental budget request, Pentagon officials have distanced themselves from the Bush administration's public optimism about trends in Iraq. Instead, they make the fairly pessimistic assumption that about as many troops will be needed there next year as are currently on the ground.

Yale University economist William D. Nordhaus estimated that in inflation-adjusted terms, World War I cost just under $200 billion for the United States. The Vietnam War cost roughly $500 billion from 1964 to 1972, Nordhaus said. The cost of the Iraq war could reach nearly half that number by next fall, 2 1/2 years after it began.

Another interesting, semi relevant link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6331771/

No other set of subjects divided Bush more sharply from his intelligence establishment. Although the CIA judged, wrongly, that Iraq had resumed efforts to build a nuclear device, U.S. intelligence agencies described other unfriendly states as far more advanced.

The whole thing is quite informative though.
 
Mechagodzilla said:
That would be difficult to provide over the internet, so instead here's a live performance of my hit cover of Whitney Houston's love theme from The Bodyguard

And IIIIIIII...
Will always love yooooooooouuu
IIIIIII...
Will always love yooooooooooou
You, ooooooooooh

[Instrumental/Sax solo]

And IIIIIIIII...
Will always love yooooooouuu
IIIIIIIIIIII...
Will always love yoooooooooouuu
[Repeat]

Thanks, you've been a great audience. :monkee:

Absolutely...amazing. :|

Don't quit your day job as a pop singer. :D:D:D
 
blahblahblah said:
I said the past can't be changed, yet you keep regurgitating it.
The best indication of what is to come is from the past.
 
CptStern said:
hmmm how about minding your own business and not getting involved? or was that never been an option as it has been for more deserving countries such as rwanda sudan etc etc
But yet your Candian getting into American politics?Also add on to that you can't vote for OUR president.I know I know...your gonna say...but ohhhh americas economy and politics affects the globe.Please...stick to Candian politics.If you care so much about the US then why don't you move here?
 
I dunno....I just don't understand why they waste there time with our politics.
 
Neutrino said:
Well, they do.

Tron's point (I think) is that Stern doesn't want the US meddling with other Country's affairs, but CptStern feels it is alright to meddle with the affairs of the US.

That is how I interpreted Tr0n's statement.
 
blahblahblah said:
Tron's point (I think) is that Stern doesn't want the US meddling with other Country's affairs, but CptStern feels it is alright to meddle with the affairs of the US.

That is how I interpreted Tr0n's statement.
Damn dude..you got it. :thumbs:
 
Tr0n said:
I dunno....I just don't understand why they waste there time with our politics.

Because American is arguably the only remaining super power. As such what it does internationally affects many people outside the US. Perhaps a hundred years ago, when we had more of an isolationist policy, that wouldn't be so true. But in today's world the borders between countries are much less clear in many respects.

Now don't get me wrong. I don't think non-Americans should be able to vote in the US election. Not at all. I don't think I should have any direct influence in the elections in other countries either. But that doesn't mean they can't have an interest in it. It can affect their lives to, even if it is to a lesser extent.

An obvious example is Iraq. I would say people in Iraq have every right to be interested in the US elections. They're not alone either. We influence many countries and their people whether it be an economic influence or a military influence.

blahblahblah said:
Tron's point (I think) is that Stern doesn't want the US meddling with other Country's affairs, but CptStern feels it is alright to meddle with the affairs of the US.

That is how I interpreted Tr0n's statement.

I must be typing slow today, sorry. :)

I can see what you mean. But how is Stern meddling with the affairs of the US by expressing his opinion? Not quite the same as starting a war.
 
Neutrino said:
Because American is arguably the only remaining super power. As such what it does internationally affects many people outside the US. Perhaps a hundred years ago, when we had more of an isolationist policy, that wouldn't be so true. But in today's world the borders between countries are much less clear in many respects.

Now don't get me wrong. I don't think non-Americans should be able to vote in the US election. Not at all. I don't think I should have any direct influence in the elections in other countries either. But that doesn't mean they can't have an interest in it. It can affect their lives to, even if it is to a lesser extent.

An obvious example is Iraq. I would say people in Iraq have every right to be interested in the US elections. They're not alone either. We influence many countries and their people whether it be an economic influence or a military influence.But yea you are right tho....Some people won't admit we are the only remaining Super Power tho... :E



I must be typing slow today, sorry. :)

I can see what you mean. But how is Stern meddling with the affairs of the US by expressing his opinion? Not quite the same as starting a war.
Well still he is waisting his time....hell the topic title is "How would you spend your $3,415?".Money thats not really coming out of his pockets but ours.But you are right tho...Another thing I find funny is most euro's still deny that we are a Super Power and are the most powerful country in the world. :laugh:
 
blahblahblah said:
Tron's point (I think) is that Stern doesn't want the US meddling with other Country's affairs, but CptStern feels it is alright to meddle with the affairs of the US.

That is how I interpreted Tr0n's statement.

hmmm well lets see last I checked I didnt have an army to back me up so it's unfair to compare me with the US. For your information this election, this war affects every single person in the world either directly or indirectly so you're damn straight I'm going to throw in my 2 cents
 
CptStern said:
hmmm well lets see last I checked I didnt have an army to back me up so it's unfair to compare me with the US. For your information this election, this war affects every single person in the world either directly or indirectly so you're damn straight I'm going to throw in my 2 cents
More like a thousand bucks telling by how many post and threads you have made... ;)
 
seinfeldrules said:
I would have used it to save 25 million people from a brutal dictator. Its the American way, and it should be the UN's way as well.


Mission accomplished.

PS- Those numbers are BS.
You mean ruin the lives of 25 million people and destroy thier country. :hmph:

PS. Thanks for perfectly illustrating my point.
 
blahblahblah said:
I'm sure you have mentioned before that the US is such a large country and should help other nations. Isn't that contradictory in nature. I'm sure every other industrialized nation in the world, will still be angry at the US if the US adopted an isolationist policy.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Thank-you come again. :laugh:


look it's painfully obvious why the US helps one country and not another ..it has nothing to do with alturistic reasons. What gets me is that the US hides behind the mantle of the "liberator", the "defender of justice", but it couldnt be further from the truth. The US has long been highly criticised for doing very little when it comes to peace keeping. America's role is policing (as they see fit) not peace keeping. Who cares if millions of poor die in some backward country when there's villians brandishing WMD threatening to use them on the unsuspecting freedom loving americans
 
Back
Top