jump to last post 1-10 of 10 discussions (35 posts)

war on terror costs $ 1 trillion for usa

  1. pisean282311 profile image57
    pisean282311posted 6 years ago

    The United States has spent more than $ 1 trillion on wars since the September 11, 2001, says a recently released Congressional report.

    Adjusting for inflation, the outlays for conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere around the world make the "war on terrorism" second only to World War II that cost $ 4.1 trillion at today's prices, the report says.

    The report "Cost of Major US Wars" by the Congressional Research Service attempts to compare war costs over a more than 230-year period-from the American Revolution to the current day-noting the difficulties associated with such a task.

  2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago

    The former head of MI5 testified that

    1. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have greatly increased the terrorist threat to Britain by "radicalizing...young people who saw our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq as an attack on Islam.

    2. The Blair government failed to heed MI5's warning that attacking Saddam Hussein would make Britain more vulnerable to terrorism.

    3. Iraq had presented little threat to Britain before the invasion.

    4. There had been no reliable evidence linking the government of Saddam Hussein to the 9-11 attacks on the U.S. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11.

    5. This judgment that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11 and was not a threat found favor with elements in the U.S. government. And that's why Donald Rumsfeld set up an alternative intelligence unit in the Pentagon to seek an alternative judgment.

    6. The invasion led to an "almost overwhelming" increase in homegrown terrorism, so much that MI5 had to have its budget doubled in the following months.

    7. "Arguably, we gave Osama bin Laden his Iraqi jihad."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/21/world … amp;st=cse

    1. MikeNV profile image75
      MikeNVposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I totally agree.

      We are not safer, we are less safe.

      We spend all this money and refuse to secure our own borders.  I'm not talking about Illegal Immegration I'm talking about Borders that are so open that 20 million people can cross and set up shop.  If it's that easy do you really think that Terrorists can't get into the country?

      Think about that... doesn't that make you wonder what the REAL agenda is?

      And this money didn't just evaporate it went into the pockets of the people who profit from war... the people at the very top.  International Corporations who build the equipment and will supply both sides.

      Americans are getting duped and lied to.

  3. Flightkeeper profile image78
    Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago

    It's all the more reason to take drastically reduce our military from places where it's not needed. Like Europe and Japan. We have to focus our energies on the stuff that directly involves us.

    1. alternate poet profile image78
      alternate poetposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      In what way does Iraq 'directly' involve you ?

      1. Flightkeeper profile image78
        Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        It's a good question, because the reasons for Iraq invasion is not at all similar to the Afghanistan invasion.  However, I think that the circumstances at the time along with Saddam Hussein's threats against the US and his crowing about his nuclear capabilities and his being uncooperative with the UN inspections is why we are directly involved.

        1. profile image0
          china manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          As I remember watching it unfold Saddam never threatened the US, unless not co-operating on selling the US Iraqi oil was a threat. 
          I do not recall him crowing about nuclear capabilities, I did hear the US and UK governments endlessly telling us he had nuclear capabilities.
          And his unco-operative behaviour with the UN inspections team did not prevent those teams putting in their reports that in their opinion there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, however hard they looked. Along with the lies and forgeries about 'purchases' of enriched uranium etc.

          So - I have to ask again how did, and does, Iraq involve you ?

          1. Flightkeeper profile image78
            Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I've already answered that question. If my answer doesn't satisfy your perception of reality, it's not my problem.

            1. profile image0
              china manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Maybe you are too young to remember and so only know what you get from the tv.  Those who listened to the whole disgusting pack of lies and misrepresentation know different.

              1. Flightkeeper profile image78
                Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Or you could be too old and jaded and just see everything is bad and run away to another country.

                1. profile image0
                  china manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  big_smile  good answer !  I guess we may be both right big_smile

                  1. Flightkeeper profile image78
                    Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Yup big_smile

          2. Sab Oh profile image60
            Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            "I  do not recall him crowing about nuclear capabilities"

            You do not recall Iraq's history of pursuing nuclear development?

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
              Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              It was a very short and unsuccessful history. As I recall Israel took out an Iraq reactor.

              Osirak, also spelled Osiraq, (French: Osirak; Iraqi: Tammuz 1, اوسيراك), was a French-supplied 40 MW light-water nuclear materials testing reactor (MTR) in Iraq. It was constructed by the Iraqi government at the Al Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center, 18 km (11 miles) south-east of Baghdad in 1977. It was damaged by an Iranian air strike in 1980 during the Iran–Iraq War, then crippled by Israeli aircraft in 1981 in a surprise attack code-named Operation Opera, which was intended to prevent the regime of Saddam Hussein from using the reactor for the creation of nuclear weapons. In September 1975, then-Vice President Hussein had declared publicly that the acquisition of the French reactor was the first step in the production of an Arab atomic weapon.[1] The facility was completely destroyed by American aircraft during the 1991 Gulf War, during the "Package Q" Airstrike.

              1. Sab Oh profile image60
                Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                And of course Iraq just gave up on the whole idea at that point, right?

                1. profile image0
                  china manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  No - I seem to remember that this whole episode was part of the lies and fabrications for illegally destroying Iraq and killing so many of its citizens. And lets not forget those abandoned portacabins that were touted as Iraq's chemical weapons manufacturing.  The lies are so well known by everyone, except you of course.

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The only way Iraq involves us Americans is by General Colin Powell's china store maxim: "If we break it we own it." Iraq clearly qualifies on that ground.

        1. pisean282311 profile image57
          pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "If we break it we own it."..interesting..

  4. I am DB Cooper profile image70
    I am DB Cooperposted 6 years ago

    I can't wait to see which emotion we declare war on next and how much money we're willing to spend. $500 billion to fight the war on nervous tension sounds about right. I'd pay $25 out of my own pocket to fight the war on anger.

    1. Flightkeeper profile image78
      Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I thought we were fighting the War on Climate Change. No? My bad.

  5. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago

    We need to fight a war on war!

  6. Greek One profile image77
    Greek Oneposted 6 years ago

    I say we go double or nothing on North Korea

    1. profile image0
      china manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Nah - Iran, then that would get in the other Muslim countries and Israel would join in with their nukes that the good ole US gave them and then we could all play armageddon.

      Maybe we should just limit ourselves to Haiti for the time being ?

      1. Greek One profile image77
        Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        i'm looking for a limited, small war (no offense to the diminutive stature of the north korean leader intended)

        1. profile image0
          china manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Oh right - a pick on the little guy kinda war - lets see, Vietnamese are kinda small . . .  . Oh no, they are better at it I remember, what about Iceland ?

          1. Greek One profile image77
            Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            what the hell are we going to do with iceland??

            1. profile image0
              china manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              We could destroy its infrastructure and kill loads of people - and hey, what can they do to stop  us.  And they have those volcanoes of mass destruction !

              1. Greek One profile image77
                Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                are you sure they have infrastructure?...

                or people to kill??

                1. profile image0
                  china manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Yeah - I met some on holiday in Malta - they were there to drink themselves into oblivion as booze in Iceland is incredibly expensive and they were all totally depressed due to the short days in winter.  And these were pretty young ladies, but drunken misery is the biggest turn off big_smile

                  1. Greek One profile image77
                    Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    speak for yourself..

                    i love drunken misery!

  7. Stacie L profile image86
    Stacie Lposted 6 years ago

    http://costofwar.com/
    get the up to the minute costs of these two wars..this money could be spent improving out own economy
    these wars cannot be won sad

  8. SomewayOuttaHere profile image61
    SomewayOuttaHereposted 6 years ago

    ..better go start my day off and get off these threads!

    http://i803.photobucket.com/albums/yy317/mlmvicbc/drevil.jpg

  9. andromida profile image75
    andromidaposted 6 years ago

    ROI of this war,from oil money, must be multiple of a trillion.

    1. Sab Oh profile image60
      Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Or, 0

  10. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image61
    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 6 years ago

    War on terror costs $ 1 trillion fo USA.... Even if you spend another trillion, you cant win. Because most of the terrorists are becoming like that out of frustration when their efforts to get their rightful privileges through peaceful means.

    But there are some terrorists who are patronised by  their own governments just to trouble the neighbouring countries and snatch their territory at a favourable time. Those governments are patronised by America... Only American citizens can set right the wrong-doings of their government. Pakistani terrorists, aided by ISI-army and American patronage of Pakistani govt. is the example. 

    There is a proverb in Tamil: "Those fighting for their rights are more powerful than those trying to subjugate them."  So, in the name of wiping out terrorism, America is earning the wrath of the masses, where they pretend as "fighters of terrorism".   Iraq is the example.

 
working