Skip to comments.
Cost of Iraq War Compared to Other US Wars (vanity)
07/09/07
| self (vanity)
Posted on 07/14/2007 12:32:40 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-50 next last
We see so many claims that the Iraq war is wildly expensive. I thought comparing its cost to that of other US wars by GDP and Total Federal Expenditures at the time might be interesting. Data is the best I could come up with, but is inherently problematic, especially for the WBTS and other pre-1900 wars. It is also possible I dropped a decimal somewhere. :)
I am a vanity virgin, so please be gentle.
Moderator, if this is not an appropriate post, please feel free to delete or move it.
To: Sherman Logan
Thanks for posting. Also interesting that the US population has increased by almost 100 million since the Vietnam War!
To: Sherman Logan
Total percentage of expenditure for Iraq according to you is 18%. The total cost of WWII, a war fought on a global scale is 238%. So, this tiny little war is 1/15 the scale of a global war. How can that be justified?
3
posted on
07/14/2007 12:37:48 PM PDT
by
raybbr
(You think it's bad now - wait till the anchor babies start to vote.)
To: Sherman Logan
Very informative.
Nice to see it called the WBTS and not the inaccurate CW too.
4
posted on
07/14/2007 12:38:23 PM PDT
by
Weeedley
To: Sherman Logan
A chart you will never see printed in the MSM, that’s for sure
5
posted on
07/14/2007 12:40:29 PM PDT
by
stm
(Fred Thompson in 08! Return our country to the era of Reagan Conservatism)
To: raybbr
So, this tiny little war is 1/15 the scale of a global war. How can that be justified?I don't know that is can be justified, but the reasons are pretty clear.
Compare the cost of providing and maintaining WWII military equipment to that of today.
Compare what we pay each soldier to what we paid in 1945. Volunteer armies are a lot more expensive per soldier than conscript armies.
Essentially we are spending a LOT of money in a largely successful effort to reduce the number of deaths and injuries suffered by our troops.
6
posted on
07/14/2007 12:42:23 PM PDT
by
Sherman Logan
(It's not the heat, it's the stupidity.)
To: Weeedley
IMHO, neither term is entirely accurate, but I use WBTS because I think it is slightly closer to accurately reflecting the nature of the war.
Which term you prefer is generally determined by which side you feel was in the right. :)
Of course, I could have referred to it as the Great Rebellion. :)
7
posted on
07/14/2007 12:46:32 PM PDT
by
Sherman Logan
(It's not the heat, it's the stupidity.)
To: Sherman Logan
Two critiques of the posting.
First, it accepts the left’s false partition of the Iraq campaign from WW IV (usually ill-named the ‘Global War on Terror’), just as it accepts the false paritioning of the Vietnam and Korean campaigns from the whole of WW III (usually called the Cold War).
Second, it’s missing our first foreign war: the Barbary War. Which it is good to remember, since our first foreign war was also against militant Islam.
8
posted on
07/14/2007 12:48:47 PM PDT
by
The_Reader_David
(And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
To: Sherman Logan
War for Southern Independence in these parts...
9
posted on
07/14/2007 12:54:21 PM PDT
by
Weeedley
To: The_Reader_David
I don’t disagree with your comments. I used the most commonly accepted definition of US wars.
Feel free to post numbers for our wars as you define them.
Given your criteria, WWIII, the Cold War, would be far and away the most expensive of our wars, mainly because it lasted over 40 years.
10
posted on
07/14/2007 12:54:37 PM PDT
by
Sherman Logan
(It's not the heat, it's the stupidity.)
To: Sherman Logan
Thank you for the post. Very interesting.
To: Sherman Logan
To: Sherman Logan
Compliments. With credits, are we free to use this in postings elsewhere???
13
posted on
07/14/2007 12:57:51 PM PDT
by
GoldCountryRedneck
("Flying is like Life: Know where you are, where you're going, and how to get there." - 'Ol Dad)
To: The_Reader_David
The Barbary War was actually two wars. One fought from 1801 to 1805, the other during 1815.
The Second Barbary War was much more successful. After tangling with the Royal Navy in the War of 1812, Barbary pirates weren’t hard to handle.
14
posted on
07/14/2007 12:58:50 PM PDT
by
Sherman Logan
(It's not the heat, it's the stupidity.)
To: GoldCountryRedneck
15
posted on
07/14/2007 12:59:32 PM PDT
by
Sherman Logan
(It's not the heat, it's the stupidity.)
To: operation clinton cleanup
Too much of that surge was via the unfenced soft underbelly of the lower 48 and and bumper crop of anchor-babies.... We should be at 260 M thereabouts.
16
posted on
07/14/2007 12:59:36 PM PDT
by
Weeedley
To: Sherman Logan
If you lived in the South, it was referred to as the War of Northern Agression.
17
posted on
07/14/2007 1:01:54 PM PDT
by
richardtavor
(Pray for the peace of Jerusalem in the name of the G-d of Jacob)
To: Sherman Logan
I agree, good work and thanks for the work.Just one more piece of info that one will not see from MSM. I prolly missed it but what was source?
18
posted on
07/14/2007 1:02:35 PM PDT
by
VaRepublican
(I would propagate tag lines but I don't know how...)
To: Weeedley
OTOH, without Roe v. Wade we might be closer to 350M.
19
posted on
07/14/2007 1:03:08 PM PDT
by
Sherman Logan
(It's not the heat, it's the stupidity.)
To: Sherman Logan
20
posted on
07/14/2007 1:04:08 PM PDT
by
elfman2
(An army of amateurs doing the media's job.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-50 next 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson