Cost of war: $2 Trillion

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by miloblithe, May 10, 2007.

  1. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #1
    http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/10/BAGIFPOG7Q1.DTL&type=politics

    Rome is falling.

    What a mess. Add the refugee issue, and it seems to me that Bush has found a recipe for long-term US success: as long as we maintain our troop levels, within a generation there will be so few Iraqis left that controlling them will not be so difficult.
     
  2. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #2
    We should send Bush a fiddle, but for some reason, I'm thinking he wouldn't get the reference.
     
  3. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #3
    Oh yes, and back in the day this WH was telling us $50 billion tops, and that Iraqi oil money would cover that cost for us in rapid fashion.

    Now, question is: were they lying or stupid?
     
  4. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #4
    Some were lying and some were stupid.
     
  5. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #5
    Yes.
     
  6. FFTT macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #6
    If it were not for the Bush/Cheney dynasty history of profitteering from the military industrial complex and related business interests,
    I could maybe fall for the assumption of stupidity.

    I'm sorry but these slimeballs just wanted this war so much and they were
    highly effective selling the idea against our better judgement.

    I think you could easily double that figure as it all works out and most of it
    will never be traced.
     
  7. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
  8. FFTT macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #8
    Well there's still a whole lot of people who believe everything they hear
    on Fox News too.

    But it wasn't just Fox News, it was all of them falling in line with the spin
    rather than losing sponsors or being called Un-American for questioning
    the whole stinking mess.

    I saw right through that 700 club sales pitch from the very beginning and
    Congress played along with all the oversight of the famous three chimps.

    If we really wanted democracy in the middle east and wanted to win the
    hearts and minds of the people, we would have been better off just handing out the money they've squandered and stolen.
     
  9. Legolamb macrumors 6502a

    Legolamb

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2006
    Location:
    North of where I'd like to be
    #9
    For all you political historians, is this the worst administration in U.S. history? What would be the measures?
    The only good that I see coming out of the past 8 years (if we survive it) will be a cottage industry in universities devoted to studying the debacle of BushInc.
     
  10. Chef Medeski macrumors 6502a

    Chef Medeski

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Location:
    New York, NY
    #10
    Well technically they are offering two costs comparisons. They said how much the war would cost directly in things such a troops, armor, moving all these men. These guys are telling us the cost to the US economy of veterans not being present in the job market and veteran sevarance. TWO widly differing cost comparisons really. Im not sure how accurate the $50bill is, but you cant compare these two.
     
  11. Chef Medeski macrumors 6502a

    Chef Medeski

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Location:
    New York, NY
    #11
    Worst probably not. In terms of cover ups and the such. I think roosevelt comes the closest to Bush in not only increasing the size of the gov't, but supposefly funding attacks on the US, using it as an excuse to go to war, and pretty shoddy records on following the constitution. Hamilton was pretty bad too. He packed his house with more cronies than Bush and he told everyone that that was the right thing to do! You could draw some comparisons to Bush in the past. Reagan comes close too. Bush I was like a watered down version of Bush II. Really though I would say Bush II will not be remebered half as bad in a century. I think he will be more part of a succesion that is the re-emergence of the right starting in the 80s. Reagan, Bush I, Bush II. I think hell merely be part of a lineage that started the eventual collapse of world domination. We'll get out of the Iraq War for good or bad probably by the close of this decade if not by 2013. So... the Iraq War is huge now, but I think it'll really be a blimp on the screen an illustration of the shift in foreign policy and goverment business in the US gov't during the right re-emergence.

    I certainly doubt he will be cast as the devil as Hitler was. He hasnt lost to anyone yet. And the winners get to write about History. Im sure if Saddam could write the History books, we would see a different light. But Im pretty sure History will be fairly nice to Bush just like it was to Reagan even though he nearely went on as bad as tricades through Central America. It may not have been as direct. But certainly as devastating to local populations. And thats the sad truth, while Reagan hurt propably just as many Lations as BUsh did Iraqis, he isn't going to go down in the book half as bad because it wasn't direct and no one cares as long as their boys are home safe. Funny.
     
  12. FFTT macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #12
    The investigations are far from over and as we get closer to the 2008 elections, I'm pretty confident that more will be revealed to show just
    how corrupt this administration has been.
     
  13. SkyBell macrumors 604

    SkyBell

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    Texas, unfortunately.
    #13
    $2 billion? That could buy me some serious Mac Pro's.:eek:

    Bush is a moron, the US sucks, I'm moving Canada.



    Im not really sure how much of that I mean
     
  14. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #14
    It's 2 Trillion, not 2 Billion. The US doesn't suck, it's just the current administration, and most of the candidates for the next election. but moving to Canada is a great idea.
     
  15. AlBDamned macrumors 68030

    AlBDamned

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    #15
    One million million (1,000,000,000,000). Imagine the good they could have done with that... :rolleyes:
     
  16. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #16
    Well, this Nobel laureate seems to think Bush is the worst. A quick Google search says so as well. Nearly a consensus of those who aren't partisan at this point. I think he will go down as one of the worst in recent years, simply because there is so much on him, even easier to prove with video. Nixon is still up there too. Reagan wasn't as great as they say he was, but he wasn't quite as bad. I think most people will look back at him as the figurehead he was, but also for the mistakes of his administration. Especially thanks to the mistakes of his successors.

    As for Roosevelt and Hamilton, a lot of what you're saying is not agreed on by most historians. Both did far more good, even if it was at such a cost. Bush doesn't have that luxury. Nixon kinda did, but not enough thanks to the crimes he went out on and the Vietnam War. If the next President is any good, especially if it's a Dem and they can get us out of Iraq without it falling completely apart, Bush will go down as one of the worst recent Presidents, if not of all of them. There's almost nothing his administration has done right, his approval now is lower than 30% and falling, and between what we know of 9/11, Katrina, and the Iraq War, it's destined to look like a failure for some time to come.
     
  17. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #17
    Of course, technically the Bush Administration played down the cost of war!

    However, we could compare the $50B prewar estimate with the nearly half-trillion that has been spent or requested to date. Would that make you think these guys were any smarter?
     
  18. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #18
    costofwar.com

    Here is an interesting site about how much the war has cost each state.
     
  19. killr_b macrumors 6502a

    killr_b

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    Location:
    Suckerfornia
    #19
    Uh, you know they promised you a hundred years war on terror right?
     
  20. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #20
    Funny that they're still funding this abomination through emergency supplementals. Why could that be? Oh yeah, less stringent oversight rules and you don't have to account for the costs in your annual budget projections!

    How anyone can call this an unexpected emergency at this point is beyond me. The party of fiscal sanity my ass.
     
  21. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #21
    Freudian slip? There's a big difference between a blimp and a blip.
     
  22. xsedrinam macrumors 601

    xsedrinam

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    #22
    Though I rather like the Hindenburg metaphor, which has titanic ramifications over that of a tiny blip.
     
  23. Chef Medeski macrumors 6502a

    Chef Medeski

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Location:
    New York, NY
    #23
    No Im saying. That if they tried to make a direct comparison to Bush's claim in terms of how much in terms of direct effects due tot he Iraq War. It would be much less. These are too entirely different numbers. This is Cost of War on the economy. The other was a simple cost of war.
     
  24. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #24
    In other words, one is the real cost, the other is the PR figure.
     
  25. Chef Medeski macrumors 6502a

    Chef Medeski

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Location:
    New York, NY
    #25
    The facts are that Hamilton stacked his house. Roosevelt expanded gov't spending by huge margins. Even if history shines happily on these presidents or people have forgotten some of the bigger scandals of their administration such as Roosevelt trying to change the entire Supreme Court so that his ambitious NRC programs wouldnt be squashed down (WHICH THEY WERE). Those are the facts and reading into them proves than maybe historians worry about these president's ramifications on the future as setting scary precedents. People may not see them as bad, but they certainly did border line items on their agenda. I dont think Bush will be so bad because some of the things Roosevelt, Hamilton, Reagan, and even Clinton did were atrocious but never really went down significantly in the minds of the poeple, but are definetly present in history books. And thats the truth. Tell me what you know about Roosevelt's supreme court plan or merely illustrate to me how that wasnt an obvious violation of the consitution?
     

Share This Page