Thanks, Dubya. $1,600,000,000,000

Originally Posted by Bro Deal

Whatever happened to the real Republicans who claim to believe in smaller government and lower taxes?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071113...go_co/war_costs

WASHINGTON - The economic costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are estimated to total $1.6 trillion — roughly double the amount the White House has requested thus far, according to a new report by Democrats on Congress' Joint Economic Committee. The report, released Tuesday, attempted to put a price tag on the two conflicts, including "hidden" costs such as interest payments on the money borrowed to pay for the wars, lost investment, the expense of long-term health care for injured veterans and the cost of oil market disruptions.

Originally Posted by limerickman

Ouch.


The total cost to the US for WW11 in todays valuation is : $4.9 trillion.
Seems that Bush is trying to beat that particular record.

I saw a very good feature on your CBS last night (the BBC shows your 7.00pm
newsbulletin).
The rate of suicides among US vets is rocketing according to CBS.
Age 20- 24 carries the highest rate of suicide for the period 1995 - 2007
Official figures show a much lower rate.
CBS has uncovered information showing that rates are actually far higher than official figures.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007...in3496471.shtml

Originally Posted by ndbiker

WASHINGTON - The economic costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are estimated to total $1.6 trillion — roughly double the amount the White House has requested thus far, according to a new report by Democrats on Congress' Joint Economic Committee. The report, released Tuesday, attempted to put a price tag on the two conflicts, including "hidden" costs such as interest payments on the money borrowed to pay for the wars, lost investment, the expense of long-term health care for injured veterans and the cost of oil market disruptions.

I believe your comparing apples to oranges. The above quote is including the opportunity costs of the war. I believe the costs you mentioned for WWII were actual costs.

Originally Posted by ndbiker

I don't believe this is about oil. We (in the US) get nearly all of our oil from North American sources and only about 10% from the Middle East. I personally felt we (meaning the multinational force) should have gone back in in 1998 when Sadam kicked out the inspectors. We had the right according to the 1991 ceasefire, the means and it would not have given Iraq, Iran, Syria or anyone else five years and the opportunity to develop a nuclear campaign. If those in the middle east had seen that the alliance was serious about what it said to Sadam then they might take us more seriously when we say "NO nuclear weapons" to Iran now. This puts us in a much more dangerous position.

Originally Posted by ndbiker

I have yet to meet someone who felt the world more secure with Sadam in power but I can understand the logic of those who feel we should not have gone to war when we did.

Originally Posted by ndbiker

I guess a question to be answered by each of us is are we more or less secure with the US having the military might it does?

Originally Posted by limerickman

WW11 costs were actual costs.





It might well have been a good idea if your country had not decided to meddle with politics throughout the Middle East from 1946 onwards.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the meddling in the middle east was taking place long before the US got involved. We were part of the alliance which created Isreal.



Iraq, under Saddam, was not a worldwide threat - Iraq wasn't even a regional threat.

Not a regional threat? Tell that to Kuwait.

USA gave Saddam military support, financial support, political support between 1979 -1991.

I agree we enabled Sadam. At the time we were paying much more attention to the Soviets and the conflagration with Iran (who had taken US hostages in 1979).



You country only goes to war, when it's in it's financial interest to do so.

Originally Posted by Colorado Ryder

It would have been a good idea if many western and eastern bloc nations not meddled in middle east affairs. Seems that the British, French, Soviets all meddled as well. The British and French were meddling way before 1946.

Originally Posted by limerickman

...............well when any British/French/Soviet based members try excusing their country's foreign policy in the Middle East, we will bring this to their attention.
OK?

Originally Posted by ndbiker

We put the majority of our gross national product to bare in WWII for mere financial gain? .

Originally Posted by ndbiker

We developed the defeated countries and those of our allies after the war for mere financial gain? .

Originally Posted by ndbiker

We spent trillions in the cold war for mere financial gain? .

Originally Posted by Colorado Ryder

It doesn't matter if someone is excusing any actions. Wouldn't you want to disclose all the facts or just cherry pick those for your argument?

Originally Posted by limerickman

This is incorrect. Your country invested in the defeated nations out of self interest, not benevolence.

Originally Posted by limerickman

Until someone from the soviet union or Europe starts going on about how their country's actions make a region more secure, I'd be happy to confront them.

Originally Posted by Colorado Ryder

Partially true. Several reasons why the US helped Europe get back on its feet.
Some political and some economical. The US did not wish to see Soviet influence expand into western Europe. The US did not want to see the europeans make the same mistakes as they did at the end of WW1.(treaty of Versailles) and yes it was a chance for US economic interest to gain by increasing marketshare. Besides who else could have provided aid on the level that was needed?

Originally Posted by limerickman

There were several factors as to why USA did makes loans to Europe.
Primarily the USA made loans, with interest, to Europe.
Those loans came with pre-conditions such as agreements to allow US companies develop in Europe.
(Coca-Cola for example, was allowed to expand unfettered).

Originally Posted by limerickman

(Which begs the question - knowing that Stalin had wiped out millions of his own people - why did UK and USA make an alliance with such a monster?)

Originally Posted by limerickman

If the USA had not funded Europe, who would have??
Like pevious wars, you'd find that the funding for reconstruction would come from all those helpful international bankers like Barings/Rothchilds/etc who funded wars and reconstructions previously.
banks are only too happy to find the reconstruction of countries.

Originally Posted by limerickman

You only joined the war when you were bombed at Pearl Harbour.
Before that you managed to do very well out of the war in Europe - in commercial terms.

I would hardly call it VERY well. While I am sure the arms we sold (via lend/lease) to Britain didn't hurt we were still fighting to get out of a depression. If we went to war only for financial gain I'm sure we could have become involved much earlier.



This is incorrect.
Your country invested in the defeated nations out of self interest, not benevolence.

Self interest? Some perhaps, but there were lessons learned after the debacle that was the Treaty of Versailles. One is don't crush your enemy after they have given up. If you lift them up it is much less likely a despot offering redemption will rise up. So if self interest also means developing security I'll agree. The attitude of Roosevelt and Churchill saved western Europe and Japan. You saw what the Soviet regime did to Eastern Europe.

The British only paid off their debt (with interest 5% annualised since 1945) to you last year.
And money given in loans or development aid came with conditions and/or was repaid in full with interest.

Thank you. Many have debts that may never be paid.



You spent trillions that directly funded your armaments industry, as a result of the Cold War.