Three Trillion Dollar War

1. 64

   Ralph Deedsposted 16 years ago

   Nobel Prize economist Joseph Stigler and Harvard economist Linda Bilmes calculate the cost of the invasion and occupation of Iraq at $3 trillion.
   
   http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/29/e … dollar_war

   replyreport
   1. 88

      livelongerposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      ...yet more proof that the Republicans, who can't seem to do math or come to grips with uncomfortable reality, ought to be ousted in November.

      replyreport
2. 59

   Mark Knowlesposted 16 years ago

   That's less than I would have expected.
   
   But the true cost is not measurable in dollars.

   replyreport
3. 0

   helenathegreatposted 16 years ago

   If the government can spend $3 trillion on war, I would like my student loans forgiven please.
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Good luck with that. That's how they will pay for the war

      replyreport
4. 61

   College politicoposted 16 years ago

   Idiotic partisan report

   replyreport
   1. 88

      livelongerposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      The site that hosted the news piece might be partisan...but that's beside the point.
      
      The book is written by a Nobel prize winner in economics, and a Harvard professor of finance. I suspect their calculations have been done very carefully. They say their calculations were conservative, and they have formidable reputations to protect.

      replyreport
   2. 59

      Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      LOL - What is this if not an incitement to an argument?
      
      I have never ever seen you on a thread that did not end in an argument with someone - and not only me.

      replyreport
5. 59

   Mark Knowlesposted 16 years ago

   Ignorant, misinformed comment.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      College politicoposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Ironic comment coming from you.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

         Explain.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            College politicoposted 16 years agoin reply to this

            No need. You know exactly what I think of you and I don't feel like getting into an argument with you.

            replyreport
6. 64

   Ralph Deedsposted 16 years ago

   Here's another "idiotic partisan report"--2,972 U.S. military casualties (deaths) + 307 military coalition deaths for a total of 3279 deaths as a result of our foolhardy, needless invasion of Iraq.
   
   In addition, estimates of Iraqi deaths exceed 1 million.
   
   http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/

   replyreport
   1. 61

      College politicoposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Interesting source for this...

      replyreport
      1. 64

         Ralph Deedsposted 16 years agoin reply to this

         The figure for U.S. military and coalition casualties can be documented in many published sources. Estimates of Iraqi casualties vary widely. If you don't like this estimate what is your estimate?
         
         Another effect of our plan for "improving" Iraq--since our invasion the treatment of women and Christians in Iraq has gone downhill fast. And yesterday the archbishop of the Chaldean (Roman Catholic) church was kidnapped in front of his cathedral. Christians in Iraq who are able to leave are doing so in droves. Under Saddam Hussein they practised their religion without harrassment. Women's rights had greater respect also.
         
         If you don't like the source, here's some identical figures on American military casualties from AP:
         
         http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gqgQ … gD8V4ARN02

         replyreport
7. 59

   Mark Knowlesposted 16 years ago

   Well, I was hoping you could offer a few examples of my ignorance. I have certainly seen plenty of yours (as has everyone else) but, I am keen to learn.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      College politicoposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      How about everything I've ever seen you say... and why do you insist on inciting arguments?

      replyreport
8. 61

   College politicoposted 16 years ago

   Its my opinion of the report... didn't attack anybody. I'm fine with discussing the issue at hand. And I've never once seen a thread where you weren't acting like a sarcastic jackass...

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      At least I don't resort to personal insults.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         College politicoposted 16 years agoin reply to this

         I was referring to your actions... not you. If you'd like me to remove it I will though.

         replyreport
   2. 88

      livelongerposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      I can't help but notice that you ignored my comment about the estimate for the cost of the war, and Ralph's about the estimate of war dead, and took the easy way out of allowing yourself to get embroiled in an attack with Mark.
      
      So, since you purportedly would prefer to discuss the issue at hand:
      - what is your estimate of the total cost of the Iraq war to the American taxpayer?
      - what is a nonbiased estimate, in your view, of the number of Iraqis killed?

      replyreport
      1. 61

         College politicoposted 16 years agoin reply to this

         I'll get back in here and discuss substantive issues with you soon. At the moment I am quite busy here at school.

         replyreport
9. 64

   Ralph Deedsposted 16 years ago

   Here's some information from another source on the cost of the Iraq war:
   
   http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      I don't think even college politico is able to argue that point. But, the fact remains that the powers-that-be feel this is a justifiable expense. Both my country's and yours.
      
      And if you accept that the govs are run as profit making institutions - the real question is - Who is making a profit?

      replyreport
10. 59

    knolyourselfposted 16 years ago

    Why do you need to prove a given? Its trillions so what.
    Follow  the money. That's where the action is at.

    replyreport
    1. 88

       livelongerposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       It's not a given; it's contested (or deliberately ignored) by the right-wing.
       
       It's an issue because people might want to know that the Republicans want to continue to spend hundreds of billions, or more, by keeping a presence in Iraq for decades.

       replyreport
11. 59

    knolyourselfposted 16 years ago

    Granted.

    replyreport
12. 61

    College politicoposted 16 years ago

    Oh just some quick points...
    
    1. I don't dispute the current number of US casualties as it is reported by the major news networks.
    
    2. Ralph's site seems to have a better estimate, conducted with better methods, than the original report. Though I do have reservations because of the motivation of the site. I hope you can understand why I say that. I mean would you trust an estimate for gun violence levels from the NRA?
    
    But I go into greater detail on the second point and answer your other questions when I have more time.

    replyreport