Skip to comments.Iraq war could cost US over $2 trillion, says Nobel prize-winning economist
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 ...
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.
you did draw first blood, now we have to anihilate him..
I agree. Monthly oil-reparation invoices.
How do you figure that?
We have a blog pimper in our midst -
It is also the exact same story posted here:
Only difference being the Guardian has the story in two places:
(Under 'special reports')
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.
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.
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?
Lookup "Project Babylon".
If the guy building it for Saddam hadn't been [thankfully] assassinated, the results would have been.. uncomfortable for us.
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.
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.
World War II was expensive too, but the cost was not a consideration.
Crystal says thank you all very much for wishing her a happy birthday. She enjoyed everyone's posts, and sends you all hugs.
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.
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?