Monday, December 06, 2004

Watch the cost spiral out of control

Some people, who are much smarter than me, figured out a way to show the cost of the war in Iraq.

Here's how they did it:

"Currently, the Cost of War calculator is set to reach $152 billion at the end of 2004. This amount is based on the National Priorities Project analysis of the three requests made by the Bush Administration for funding for the war on Iraq, and what Congress actually allocated. The most recent request passed by Congress was for an additional $25 billion which was intended to pay for the costs through the end of the calendar year. For more information, please see the NPP publication, 'Cost to taxpayers of new $25 billion war request.'"

If you go and look, just be careful. It has the same hypnotizing effect as watching clothes tumble in a dryer.

6 Comments:

At 5:29 PM, Blogger Kirk H. Sowell said...

The cost of the war is Iraq, at about $4 billion a month, is pretty minor compared to our unfunded liabilities with Social Security and other entitlement programs (which cost about $800 billion a year).

Moreover, the long-term benefits of establishing a stable, Shia-led democracy in Iraq are enourmous, and will pay off for decades. I'm not going to go into an in-depth analysis of the strategic situation here, but basically it would totally move the balance of power in the region our way, because the Shia will not support any attempt to dominate the region by Sunnis, and as Arabs they will not team up with Islamic Iran. Although I doubt democracy will be contagious elsewhere in the Arab world, Iraq's quietist Shia might help bring down the regime in Iran, with which we are not going to go to war with once they have nuclear weapons.

I suggest the Cost of War calculator be ignored; whatever the cost, it is more than worth it.

 
At 7:49 PM, Blogger Aamir said...

I'm still trying to figure out how, in a democracy, my tax dollars get spent on a war that is totally immoral.

Ok, let's see, Social Security, Ok, that helps retired folks get by, yeah, lets compare that to, uh, killing thousands of people and sending thousands of Americans to be killed and wounded in a war that cannot be won.

You can't force democracy down anybody's throat. That misses the whole point of democracy. The ends do not justify the means.

http://progspring.blogspot.com

 
At 1:54 PM, Blogger CynicalGeek said...

We have to be mindful of the age of technology which we live in. Technology is great, but there are still bugs and caveats to it.

For instance, technology has greatly improved on the battlefield (as in a Heads-Up display of the real-time battle map) but there has been at least one instance in which the commander thought the battlefield was clear ahead (as displayed by the HUD) but in fact, there was a huge battallion laying in wait for them.

Technology is streaming the dollars spent, and the war waged at light-speed around the world to our desktops now. I wonder how pro-war the American population would have been in WWII if live cameras broadcast information back from the beaches of Normandy on D-Day.

 
At 10:14 PM, Blogger Jay said...

This war would not have occurred at all if the democratic Congress from the 50s to the early 90s had not gutted our intelligence funding and constantly stymied the Intelligence Community in their attempt to gather intelligence. If President Clinton had his mind on protecting his country instead of protecting himself of scrutiny of his tawdry affairs we wouldn't be talking about this subject.

I believe this war was ill-conceived war because intelligence gathering in Iraq was not up to the task to implement or plan a effective government policy in the middle east. We have had some successes in Afghanistan but we are still vulnerable because of years of neglect of our intelligence agencies. It will take years before we have some significant successes in human intelligence and infiltration of these terrorist groups. Much of this takes some resolve of which we seem to lack due to our political climate in our own country. That is why we failed in Vietnam when a war becomes difficult and this may be why we fail in Iraq. This would be devastating to us as a country and unlike Vietnam it will come back and make us vulnerable to another attack like 9/11.

We are playing catch up with a group that has declared war on us over 15 years ago. There should be a reeducation of the history of man's agression to all of the pacifists and left leaning persuasion. Hitler wouldn't give a damn what they think!!

 
At 12:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

USUALLY I AM VERY PARTIOTIC,BUT NOT WHEN IT COMES TO BANKRUPTING THE WHOLE COUNTRY INTO INSOLVENCY,OVER A FOREIGN WAR. EVEN IF WE WIN THE WAR,WE'LL LOSE OUR OWN COUNTRY,RIGHT INTO POVERTY AND BANKRUPTCY. ASK CALIFORNIA; THEY'RE GOING TO LOSE THEIR SHIRT,AND EVERY BUSINESS IN THE STATE IS ALREADY MOVING OUT!!! THERE'S THE FUTURE OF THE U.S.A. A BANKRUPT, WORN OUT COUNTRY,DUE TO TOO MANY EXPENSIVE FORIEGN WARS...AND OPEN TO ANY INVADERS WHO WANT TO COME IN,OR BUY US OUT,AND OWN US.

 
At 4:40 PM, Blogger Me said...

America is already, as are most of the First-World nations, bankrupt.

Jay, it's not lack of intelligence that causes wars, it's politicians/leaders who cause them. Save for the Ted Nugent types and Soldier of Fortune magazine subscribers, who really wants to go to war? Did they hold a referendum within the U.S. Forces to see who wanted to go to war? Unlikely, no? Did the citizens of Iraq stand together and shout taunting remarks at the U.S. provoking such a decision?

Mind you, there are places in the world where the common people do appear to want war. Well, they do now anyway. But someone had to put those ideas in their heads. Do you really feel that at some moment, instantaneously, all the citizens of a certain nation get a clear, profound image that they must start a war with Nation X?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home