War in Iraq to cost over $2 trillion

Ratty Sr.

Ratty Sr.

Ratty, except old
Moderator
Orderite
#ENTER WELSH MODE

A new study by two leading academic experts suggests that the costs of the Iraq war will be substantially higher than previously reckoned. In a paper presented to this week’s Allied Social Sciences Association annual meeting in Boston MA., Harvard budget expert Linda Bilmes and Columbia University Professor and Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz calculate that the war is likely to cost the United States a minimum of nearly one trillion dollars and potentially over $2 trillion.
Click to expand...
Not exactly a paltry sum, eh?

The study expands on traditional budgetary estimates by including costs such as lifetime disability and health care for the over 16,000 injured, one fifth of whom have serious brain or spinal injuries.
Click to expand...
Here's an idea - save money on injured war veterans by killing them off. Barbaric? Most definitely, but somehow I wouldn't put such thoughts past Bush and his clique.

It then goes on to analyze the costs to the economy, including the economic value of lives lost and the impact of factors such as higher oil prices that can be partly attributed to the conflict in Iraq. The paper also calculates the impact on the economy if a proportion of the money spent on the Iraq war were spent in other ways, including on investments in the United States
Click to expand...
Wait, I thought this war was supposed to *benefit* the economy? Oh dear, silly me.

“Shortly before the war, when Administration economist Larry Lindsey suggested that the costs might range between $100 and $200 billion, Administration spokesmen quickly distanced themselves from those numbers,” points out Professor Stiglitz. “But in retrospect, it appears that Lindsey’s numbers represented a gross underestimate of the actual costs.”
Click to expand...
You call it underestimate, I call it outright lie. Because lying to the people is all the Republican administration is good at.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/5/11510/30624

#EXIT WELSH MODE

Take a good look, Americans. This is what you brought upon yourselves and what you voted for. This war is more than a waste of lives of your troops and Iraqi civilians. It is a gargantuan money funnel that will cripple your economy and thus directly your standard of living for years to come, while detestable war profiteers like Cheney and Ridge reap the fruits of their devilish project and shift the blame for sudden lack of perspective on them tree-hugging hippies and pinko commies.
 
Fucking hell! I never realised how bad that was for their economy and that... Makes me wonder what it's doing for the Australian economy, but nobody cares I guess...
 
But it'll do good to raise the country's GDP and further the illusion that economic progress hasn't been hampered what so ever. A welcome addition to political apologetic rhetorics, I can imagine...
 
Quacky said:
Fucking hell! I never realised how bad that was for their economy and that... Makes me wonder what it's doing for the Australian economy, but nobody cares I guess...
Click to expand...

Taking in account the small number of troops deployed by Australia and other coalietion countries, not much. From a strictly economical, short-term perspective, the privileges accorded to "liberating" countries' infrastructure companies re-building the place, it might even be a profitable thing.

It's easy money, easy jobs, especially when we build the bombs that wipe big cities off the map, just guess who profits when we build them back up?

What Big Business wants Big Business gets, it wants a war. Flame the fires of racist hatred, we want total war. Call the Army, call the Navy stuffed with kids from slums.

If you can't afford a slick attorney, we might want to make you a spy.

[/dead kennedys]
 
1st Man: Dude, they only invaded Iraq to get at the oil!

2nd Man: But that doesn't make any sense, since they're not profiting.

1st Man: Yeah!! See!? They suck at it too!!!
 
that is allot of money wasted in my opinion. 2 trillion $ could have been better spend to improve lives in US. I mean think how many schools or universities the government could have build using that sum of money.
This clearly shows how bad the current president of the US is. Just look at how the money is wasted and so little gain from this war. But unfortunately not many people care. so too bad for the tax payers, if they don't care who should
 
captain.obvious.jpg
 
And then on top of this, the baby boomers are now getting into retirement age to draw social security.

Oops...
 
Per said:
Dude, they only invaded Iraq to get at the oil!
Click to expand...
This is true, but it isn't the US economy that profits, it's the oil manufactures etc. that payed of the American politicians, that will profit, :arrow: just goes to show, who much the American politics are corrupted
 
well, there is a problem with that...

in britain, a trillion = 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 = 10 to the 18th power (18 zeros)
in america, a trillion = 1 000 000 000 000 = 10 to the 12th power (12 zeros)
 
Jarno Mikkola said:
Per said:
Dude, they only invaded Iraq to get at the oil!
Click to expand...
This is true, but it isn't the US economy that profits, it's the oil manufactures etc. that payed of the American politicians, that will profit, :arrow: just goes to show, who much the American politics are corrupted
Click to expand...


You know, because corruption is shocking in politics, right?
 
SuAside said:
well, there is a problem with that...

in britain, a trillion = 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 = 10 to the 18th power (18 zeros)
in america, a trillion = 1 000 000 000 000 = 10 to the 12th power (12 zeros)
Click to expand...

It's actually not a Britain/America thing.

There are two notations. The Americans use the shorter one.

The shorter one goes:
10^3 Thousand
10^6 Million
10^9 Billion
10^12 Trillion
...

The longer one goes:
10^3 Thousand
10^6 Million
10^9 Milliard
10^12 Billion
10^15 Billiard
10^18 Trillion
10^21 Trilliard
...

In English it tends to be a bit easier to use the shorter scale because "billiard" makes merkins think you're talking about a game of Pool.

Also, the shorter scale makes numbers sound bigger to those accustomed to the longer one. That's always good for dramatisation.
 
The vast resources of the internet are at your disposal, easily accessible data perfect to answer such a question. All useless however, if you don't even try to answer the question for yourself.

This Wikipedia entry should answer your question in a satisfactory manner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top