|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisements has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
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.
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
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.
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.
In what way does Iraq 'directly' involve you ?
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.
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 ?
I've already answered that question. If my answer doesn't satisfy your perception of reality, it's not my problem.
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.
Or you could be too old and jaded and just see everything is bad and run away to another country.
"I do not recall him crowing about nuclear capabilities"
You do not recall Iraq's history of pursuing nuclear development?
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. The facility was completely destroyed by American aircraft during the 1991 Gulf War, during the "Package Q" Airstrike.
And of course Iraq just gave up on the whole idea at that point, right?
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
i'm looking for a limited, small war (no offense to the diminutive stature of the north korean leader intended)
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 ?
what the hell are we going to do with iceland??
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 !
are you sure they have infrastructure?...
or people to kill??
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
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
..better go start my day off and get off these threads!
ROI of this war,from oil money, must be multiple of a trillion.
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.
by lady_love1587 years ago
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/14/g … -recovery/Sure enough and government regulation is what caused our problems to begin with! Anyone that thinks Obama can fix it all with even more government is a fool!
by Ralph Deeds8 years ago
The foreign policy establishment, for the most part including the New York Times editorial page, has called our military activities in Afghanistan a "necessary war," in contrast to our invasion of Iraq....
by ptosis3 months ago
Do you like the GOP tax bill that will increase the deficit by $1 trillion?If hate it then I ask you, did you contact your 2 senators that represent you via email or phone? Since 1971 the middle class has lost 30% of...
by Scott S Bateman3 months ago
Trump's new tax law that deeply slashes taxes on rich people and large corporations will force an 84 percent increase in government borrowing this year to nearly $1 trillion.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won...
by AnnCee7 years ago
Obama misread his mandate.]/b] Obama's 2008 victory was a personal one, says Bill Galston, an adviser to President Clinton. It wasn't a vote for a more expansive view of the role and reach of government. The stimulus,...
by SparklingJewel6 years ago
...within his first three years as presidenthopefully they will run the numbers and see if it is so...http://www.politico.com/news/stories/10 … z1b2aMmbbo
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.