|
|
Post by wdmundt on May 5, 2008 19:10:24 GMT -4
The Cost of War: www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home517 billion and counting. Of course, it is impossible to put an exact figure on what it has cost. It will undoubtedly be a lot more than the above number when all is said and done. I've read estimates of total cost in the 2-3 trillion dollar range. All for a war that had no purpose, has killed 4071 (and counting) US soldiers, untold Iraqis and has stirred up more trouble for the United States and its allies. Let's see, what could we do with just a measly 1 trillion dollars...? |
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on May 5, 2008 19:36:54 GMT -4
How much of that money went to U.S. corporations?
Doesn't a lot of it end up helping the U.S. economy, or am I off base about that?
Oh, to answer your question:
I would buy a medium sized home along the shore in Newfoundland. I would install the latest and greatest in solar and wind energy devices. I would stockpile as much food as I could, and sit back and paint, read, listen to music, watch DVD's and of course surf the net. I might invest in some nice guitars, have a couple of good vehicles, have a great home theatre with a ten foot screen, give lots of money to my relatives and people I like.
I'm not sure what I would do with the other 999.990,000.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 5, 2008 19:57:43 GMT -4
If I had a trillion dollars I wouldn't mind paying the vast majority of it towards freeing an oppressed people from a bloody tyrant.
|
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on May 5, 2008 20:08:06 GMT -4
And freeing a bunch of them from the burdens of being alive, at the same time. So who would you invade, next? There are lots of tyrants out there. How about Russia? Yeah, let's invade Russia. Putin is obviously a tyrant and he has obviously put an end to democracy in Russia. Yep, that is a great way to spend money.
Me, I'd put the money into cancer research. Or send a hundred people to the moon. Or fund public education.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on May 5, 2008 20:23:10 GMT -4
I wonder if with a trillion dollars we could find an alternative to oil.
Isn't it awful that solar technology has been around almost fifty years yet is still in its infant stage?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on May 5, 2008 20:24:04 GMT -4
If I had a trillion dollars I wouldn't mind paying the vast majority of it towards freeing an oppressed people from a bloody tyrant. You gotta be kidding.  |
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 5, 2008 22:29:37 GMT -4
Nope. Since this is obviously what wdmundt was aiming at, I might as well say "yes, it is worth the cost."
If you were a slave, what price would you pay for your freedom?
|
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on May 6, 2008 10:50:42 GMT -4
That begs the question that Iraqis were slaves, which is clearly not the case.
It would be worth the money to liberate Iraq to live in a democratic society, if that is what we had accomplished. Right now that goal is slipping through our grasp, if it was even attainable in the first place, which I doubt. Even Bush saw at one time that nation building is a poor reason to use the army. He should have listened to himself.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 6, 2008 12:15:16 GMT -4
Iraqis were perhaps not slaves in the literal sense, but they were definitely an oppressed and unfree people. They lived in fear of their leader's capricious and evil nature.
The goal of a democratic Iraq is fully obtainable and is in fact inevitable if we have the political will to give the Iraqis the support they need.
The cost in lives is a fraction of what we've paid in other wars. As I pointed out earlier, Vietnam averaged more casualties in a year than we have experienced in the five years we've been in Iraq.
|
|
|
|
Post by BertL on May 7, 2008 8:18:17 GMT -4
I could buy a lot of LEGO with that.
Oh, and world peace too.
|
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on May 8, 2008 13:27:26 GMT -4
I'd pay Dr. Evil's ransom.
|
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on May 8, 2008 17:58:59 GMT -4
How much of that money went to U.S. corporations? Doesn't a lot of it end up helping the U.S. economy, or am I off base about that? Well, let's see. They could spend it on supplies, personnel, etc. to fight a war in Iraq. Or they could spend it on supplies, personnel, etc. to do something different than fight a war in Iraq. Or they could leave it in the hands of taxpayers, who could spend it on spicy salsa and blue-ray DVD players. The job creation effects are similar, so the decision on what to spend it on should be based on the direct benefits. Does a war in Iraq produce any useful result, or does some other use of the money (including leaving it in the hands of the taxpayers) produce some better result? If it is supposed to be a job works program, I'd prefer one that produces something useful to one that does not produce something useful. I see the argument all the time (including here) that spending on space exploration is good for the economy because it creates jobs. Well, spending money carving giant ice sculptures every winter that melt as soon as spring comes would also create jobs. If I decide who gets funded and who doesn't, and I ask someone, what are the benefits of your project, and the answer is "It creates jobs," they're getting cut. If they can think of some actual benefits, they might get funded. |
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on May 8, 2008 18:01:23 GMT -4
If I had a trillion dollars I wouldn't mind paying the vast majority of it towards freeing an oppressed people from a bloody tyrant. I hope you would not make such a pig's breakfast of it that in surveys after this liberation, a majority of people say that their lives were better when they lived in one of the most brutal dictatorships in the world  |
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on May 8, 2008 18:02:29 GMT -4
Isn't it awful that solar technology has been around almost fifty years yet is still in its infant stage? There's a reason for that. |
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on May 8, 2008 19:21:24 GMT -4
How much of that money went to U.S. corporations? Doesn't a lot of it end up helping the U.S. economy, or am I off base about that? Well, let's see. They could spend it on supplies, personnel, etc. to fight a war in Iraq. Or they could spend it on supplies, personnel, etc. to do something different than fight a war in Iraq. Or they could leave it in the hands of taxpayers, who could spend it on spicy salsa and blue-ray DVD players. The job creation effects are similar, so the decision on what to spend it on should be based on the direct benefits. Does a war in Iraq produce any useful result, or does some other use of the money (including leaving it in the hands of the taxpayers) produce some better result? If it is supposed to be a job works program, I'd prefer one that produces something useful to one that does not produce something useful. I see the argument all the time (including here) that spending on space exploration is good for the economy because it creates jobs. Well, spending money carving giant ice sculptures every winter that melt as soon as spring comes would also create jobs. If I decide who gets funded and who doesn't, and I ask someone, what are the benefits of your project, and the answer is "It creates jobs," they're getting cut. If they can think of some actual benefits, they might get funded. Oh, I'm not suggesting that a War in Iraq is a good way to spend a trillion dollars. I was just pointing out that at least some of that money goes back into the economy. Does anyone have any stats on how the war has hurt the U.S. economy? I bet a lot a few hundred people got rich on it, while thousands or millions suffered. |
|
