Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iraq war could cost US over $2 trillion, says Nobel prize-winning economist
The Guardian ^ | January 7, 2006 | Jamie Wilson

Posted on 01/11/2006 12:26:22 AM PST by BogusStory

Congress has appropriated $251bn for military operations, and the Congressional budget office has now estimated that under one plausible scenario the Iraq war will cost over $230bn more in the next 10 years.

According to Nobel prize winner Mr Stiglitz and Harvard budget expert Ms Bilmes, there are substantial future costs not included in the Congressional calculations. For instance, the latest Pentagon figures show that more than 16,000 military personnel have been wounded in Iraq. Due to improvements in body armour, there has been an unusually high number of soldiers who have survived major wounds such as brain damage, spinal injuries and amputations. The economists predict the cost of lifetime care for the thousands of troops who have suffered brain injuries alone could run to $35bn. Taking in increased defence spending as a result of the war, veterans' disability payments and demobilisation costs, the budgetary costs of the war alone could approach $1 trillion.

(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: blogpimpin; costofwar; iraq; pricetag; trolltimer
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-72 last
To: BogusStory; Darksheare; Zavien Doombringer; Old Sarge
RETREAD !!!!! Darks called it, I concur

IBFTZ

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

51 posted on 01/11/2006 10:41:41 AM PST by scott0347 (Commander of the 0347th Lancer Brigade, Operator of the Immaculate Steamroller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: jwpjr
I'm not implying anything. I simply made a couple of statements. Not everything in the world has a one to one ratio with something else. Some things are related through several steps of connection. And some things, while not actually related at all, serve to illustrate some things that are. It's called abstract reasoning, and for some people it's a way to understand some ideas. For others it seems foolishness.

I understand abstract reasoning and am not opposed to it being used in many cases. However, when it comes to justifying a war, or rationalizing going to war where American blood is being spilled I think using abstract reasoning is dangerous.

52 posted on 01/11/2006 10:43:45 AM PST by blueriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: BogusStory; Darksheare; meowmeow; 4mycountry; Poohbah; Grampa Dave; an amused spectator; dighton; ..
Summoning the Kitties to wipe out a Blog Pimp!


53 posted on 01/11/2006 11:04:31 AM PST by Zavien Doombringer (13th AF, 3rd TFW, 3rd AGS, 3rd AMU - ESC The Blue Screw will get you too! 86-89)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scott0347

you did draw first blood, now we have to anihilate him..


54 posted on 01/11/2006 11:05:31 AM PST by Zavien Doombringer (13th AF, 3rd TFW, 3rd AGS, 3rd AMU - ESC The Blue Screw will get you too! 86-89)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: expatguy
Iraq should pay for their own liberation.

I agree. Monthly oil-reparation invoices.

55 posted on 01/11/2006 11:08:42 AM PST by Hank Rearden (Never allow anyone who could only get a government job attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mariabush
Iraq is paying for our liberty!!!!!

How do you figure that?

56 posted on 01/11/2006 11:09:50 AM PST by Hank Rearden (Never allow anyone who could only get a government job attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: BogusStory; Zavien Doombringer
Congrats BogusStory I see you graduated Magna Cum Loser with a Liberal Arts Degree from Troll University.
57 posted on 01/11/2006 11:13:24 AM PST by Jersey Republican Biker Chick (Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BogusStory; Admin Moderator

We have a blog pimper in our midst -


58 posted on 01/11/2006 11:22:42 AM PST by Zavien Doombringer (13th AF, 3rd TFW, 3rd AGS, 3rd AMU - ESC The Blue Screw will get you too! 86-89)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zavien Doombringer; BogusStory

It is also the exact same story posted here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1553900/posts

Only difference being the Guardian has the story in two places:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1681119,00.html
(Under 'special reports')

And here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1681078,00.html

Same story.


59 posted on 01/11/2006 11:47:22 AM PST by Darksheare (Beware the waddling Penguin Invaders from Ursa Minor!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: mariabush
You are right about Iraq, but by use being there, we are keeping the real threats to our country in line. How many times does it have to be said, draw the terrorist over there and keep them off of our property????? It's working isn't it? The terrorist are very patient, and the minute that they see our real leadership weakening, we are toast.

Is that why are northern and southern borders are wide open for anyone to enter. Being in Iraq is not going to stop them from walking across the southern border. I think you are swallowing a line of crap Washington is spooning out.

60 posted on 01/11/2006 1:38:22 PM PST by blueriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
To suggest Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath party were somehow "beyond" misusing Iraq's wealth is ridiculous on the face of it.

Saddam was cornered via the UN police, he had weapons inspectors traveling throughout his country. It is a huge leap to go from that to where he would be able to launch anything to the US. He could barely get scud missiles to land in Israel during the first gulf war. We are over there for a reason, but it is not because any US city was ever in any jeopardy of being attacked by Iraq.

61 posted on 01/11/2006 1:44:36 PM PST by blueriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: blueriver
Now, who was financing Libya's atomb bomb program?

Who was financing Pakistan's atom bomb program?

You gotta' be nuts to not notice that two, now three places in the old Islamic Caliphate (a single country at one time) have been caught red-handed developing atomic weapons.

Do you think those guys actually ignore their own history?

62 posted on 01/11/2006 1:51:28 PM PST by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: blueriver

Lookup "Project Babylon".
If the guy building it for Saddam hadn't been [thankfully] assassinated, the results would have been.. uncomfortable for us.


63 posted on 01/11/2006 2:02:58 PM PST by Darksheare (Beware the waddling Penguin Invaders from Ursa Minor!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: blueriver
Here is a head start on looking it up.
64 posted on 01/11/2006 2:04:47 PM PST by Darksheare (Beware the waddling Penguin Invaders from Ursa Minor!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare
Here is a head start on looking it up.

From your article, "The superguns were potentially capable of firing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons to a range of up to 1,000 km."

How is this a threat to the shores of the USA.

65 posted on 01/11/2006 2:39:34 PM PST by blueriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: blueriver

You missed it.
It was capable of dumping a payload into orbit.
The Babylon project gun could have been used to hit satellites.
And if you can hit satellites, you can do a bunch of other stuff.
THAT is in that linked article too.


66 posted on 01/11/2006 3:17:35 PM PST by Darksheare (Beware the waddling Penguin Invaders from Ursa Minor!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: blueriver
Saddam was also working on space launch platforms.
Thankfully, its range was 'only' 2000km.
67 posted on 01/11/2006 3:23:13 PM PST by Darksheare (Beware the waddling Penguin Invaders from Ursa Minor!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: BogusStory

World War II was expensive too, but the cost was not a consideration.

Regards, Ivan


68 posted on 01/11/2006 3:24:46 PM PST by MadIvan (You underestimate the power of the Dark Side - http://www.sithorder.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Deth; Kathy in Alaska; acad1228; All

Crystal says thank you all very much for wishing her a happy birthday. She enjoyed everyone's posts, and sends you all hugs.


69 posted on 01/11/2006 5:58:23 PM PST by trussell (Work for God...the retirement benefits are great!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: blueriver
Actually, I'm not trying to justify the war in Iraq or to rationalize the war. My support of the war is not based on the fact that they might or might not have had WMD's or that they were a direct and immediate threat to the US. There are a number of countries in the world that represent a threat to us and our way of life, some more directly than others. We are going to have to deal with them sooner or later and it's my humble opinion that sooner would be better. Truth is, all I know about the world situation is what I read and see in the news and here on FR. I have absolutely NO control over what my country does or doesn't do to address these threats. I would love to have some inside information that gave me absolute knowledge of whether or not the move into Iraq was a good idea. I know my limitations and after nearly 70 years of life I find it easier to fret about things I have at least some control over in my life.

I guess we are on opposite sides of this discussion, but I honestly enjoy having the discussion. Thank you for a reasoned and noninflammatory approach to it.
70 posted on 01/11/2006 8:24:10 PM PST by jwpjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: jwpjr
I guess we are on opposite sides of this discussion, but I honestly enjoy having the discussion. Thank you for a reasoned and noninflammatory approach to it.

I thank you as well for your approach to having a civilized discussion on a very important topic even though we are on opposite sides of the fence.

My support of the war is not based on the fact that they might or might not have had WMD's or that they were a direct and immediate threat to the US. There are a number of countries in the world that represent a threat to us and our way of life, some more directly than others.

Here are my thoughts on that, we choose who is our enemy and who is not our enemy, if you recall at one time we were on the same team as Saddam Hussein, we stood behind him during the Iran Iraq war. What changed? You could say the turning point occurred when he invaded Kuwait, but I have read that behind the scenes we gave him the wink on that one and he fell for it. That may or not be true but I don't always trust the people running our foreign policy. Anyway, the end result is that Iraq became the enemy. The part that does not square with me is why go to war when he was cornered, he could not make a move in his own country without some weapons inspector breathing down his neck. Wouldn't it have been much cheaper to just keep a huge team of weapons inspectors in his country indefinitely rather than what we have now? That is why I think there is more to the "why" we are there than meets the eye. I have a very high litmus test for war and for shedding American blood.

71 posted on 01/12/2006 5:46:12 AM PST by blueriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: BogusStory

Isn't the real story to be reported on here the fact that the total cost so far has already gone WAY past the initial $50-60 billion estimate put out by the administration? So far they're off by 400% and climbing. Just like drug coverage in medicare, where the costs are well above the administrations initial claims. Or how about the deficit, which he had a "plan" to reduce by 50%... of course the plan doesn't reduce on-budget deficits by even so much as 15% by 2008, before they start increasing again...

Who can believe the admin numbers any more?


72 posted on 01/12/2006 7:48:03 AM PST by eraser2005
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-72 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson