News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.5K     0 

it was, I did an inflation adjustment to 1945 to 2007 and that 1 trillion is now...


The cost of WW2 in 2007 dollars is 11.4 trillion....

Still the costs of the Iraq war are still huge...
 
World War Two would have cost much more because of differences related to a war economy.
 
What does that mean exactly? (that requires some justification)
 
Forty percent of the entire U.S. GNP was directly related to the war effort by 1943. There were other structural differences as well. For example, the collection of things such as metal products for manufacturing which were collected by everyone from individuals to corporations and used for steel-making without any financial transaction. There was significant rationing on many essential materials, and strict wage and price controls were in effect to control inflation. There was also massive amounts of unpaid overtime given by workers in all sectors of the war economy. There were also immense volunteer efforts where time was given without pay solely because of the war. Wartime transfers and allocations of land, labour and goods were priced differently during wartime than they would have been during peace time.

There are many others.

It's also worth noting that the figures for the cost of the Iraq war that are being quoted range from about two trillion to three trillion dollars. That's a pretty significant difference in the estimates.
 
Your point then was that military expenditures and GNP/GDP figures didn't capture the same extent of economic activity then as now... I had a different impression of what you meant.
 
thats a rather simplistic outlook. The reality is the so called "terrorist" groups are not national entities but are independant of geography. The fact that bin Laden is supposed to be in Afghanistan is simply a matter of trivia. I wonder if you are also one of those who believes that some sort of victory can be claimed by either killing or capturing bin Laden? I think that theory should have been put to rest now by the aftermath of the Americans killing Saddam and his two sons in Iraq...

re: the trillions of dollars spent, its all part of Bush & co.'s masterplan to bankrupt the public system in America by transferring that public wealth to private hands through such entities as arms manufacturers, oil companies and contractors such as Haliburton etc.

check out this great documentary : " Iraq's Missing Billions"
http://www.shapeshift.net/2008/06/missing-billions/
 
scarberiankhatru said:
That could have bought Bill Clinton more haircuts than he could grow out of in like millions of lifetimes.
Click to expand...

And it could have bought him a lifetime supply of hookers on a nightly basis, for a million lifetimes. ;)
 
I appreciate the thought exercise but it actually illustrates an interesting misconception. The misconception is that funding made available for one initiative would be available to alternative initiatives if not spent. This is perfect reasoning, simple mass in mass out logic. However, in reality money flows to initiative and initiative is satisfied in order of priority set my the relative power of special interest lobbies. So instead of having profound impact on an issue lacking a strong lobby, money instead would be allocated to augment the budget of a massive program where it would have almost no additional impact or it simply would not be levied in the first place.
 
Redroom Studios said:
thats a rather simplistic outlook. The reality is the so called "terrorist" groups are not national entities but are independant of geography. The fact that bin Laden is supposed to be in Afghanistan is simply a matter of trivia. I wonder if you are also one of those who believes that some sort of victory can be claimed by either killing or capturing bin Laden? I think that theory should have been put to rest now by the aftermath of the Americans killing Saddam and his two sons in Iraq...
Click to expand...

No I don't believe killing UBL will solve anything except give us a propaganda victory for a few weeks. As somebody who works in the Headquarters staff, I believe in the sincerity of those involved in this mission. We are there under a UN mandate, and at the invitation of the Afghan government, to help rehabilitate that country so it doesn't become a home to anti-western jihadis again. You are only partially right that global jihadis are independent of geography. In reality, they seek unstable countries to provide them cover for their activities and training and targets of opportunity when western forces arrive on site. This is why Iraq was a blunder (it was stable and unavailable to AQ), and that is why nobody is willing to jump into Darfur, where our western soldiers would become fish in a barrel to extremists of all kinds.

It is a race against time. It takes the construction of schools, clinics, public infrastructure, and governance infrastructure. One notorious example....Canadians had to build an entire banking system with ATMs and debit cards just to pay the ANA soldiers, since they usually received a third of their pay which got wittled down by corruption. The society has undergone 20 years of instability, and as such it will take time to rebuild and for the Afghans to find their footing. We are just trying to help them along and buy them some time.

I can understand that you are opposed to the war. But please make some suggestions instead of offering some critical platitudes. Do you want us to flat out withdraw and let the Taliban have their way with the Afghans? Or do you want us to stay and work with them to build a better tomorrow? What do you think we can do to make the lives of the Afghans better? I'd love to hear some suggestions.
 
Given that most of this money is an accumulated deficit, nothing would have been done with this money. Without Iraq, the money would not have been borrowed and US debt and the annual deficit would have been lower. That would have been the only significant impact.
 
Nonetheless, that is a pretty significant problem! $2 trillion is a lot of debt for the rest of the world to buy up, and things will get pretty ugly if they lose their appetite.
 
jade_lee said:
Why do we see the war in Afghanistan as different from the war in Iraq?
Click to expand...

In simplest terms: the Afghan war was sanctioned by the UN; Iraq was and is more 'unilateral' by the U.S.
I have always supported the Iraq invasion, but the occupancy has definitely been a disaster. It will be interesting what happens as more and more truth leaks out over the next decade or so. Specifically, I am curious how much input Bush Sr. had to the invasion of Iraq. Many critics have argued that Bush Sr. should have displaced Hussein in '91 when he had the chance and when there would have been a better appearance of justification.
Two trillion is a lot of money. Is Iraq going to pay any of it back? Will it ever be able to?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top