should give me a zillionth of that money, i'll live as a king for life. In fact if you gave every one 50 000 each, america would be far far better today.
Not sure how they figured these numbers were accurate. It's calculated that the cost of the Iraqi war is at 800'ish billion. Thats from it's start to today. If it was 720 million a day [8 yrs x 365 x 720] = 2+ trillion. Obviously your estimate is an incredibly large exaggeration. Also, they found out the amount in the stimulus bill [which irreperably failed] cost more than a war and fixed nothing. And the economy recession was caused by the housing crisis you idiots.
And HOW much money did our Eternal President Obama spend in the first couple weeks of office? About a trillion. Has our economy been rescued by the Chosen One? Nope. Well, French the Llama, isn't that surprising?
If we assume that the US spent 700 billion on the war and the cost per watt per dollar of solar power is 3.5 dollars to the watt... the money could supply 1/3 of the US power needs... Meaning that they could have free electricity points for cars, meaning no need for oil.
I know, I didn't want to be accused of playing with the figures to make it sound better. I can't believe someone actually gave my previous comment the thumbs down ? Save lives, make the world better, cheaper energy for the US, less dependency on oil... all good things !?
God loved the world He gave his only Son so that everyone who believes in him will not die but will have eternal life.God sent his Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but to save the world. 18 Those who believe in him won't be condemned. But those who don't believe are already condemned because they don't believe in God's only Son. 19 This is why people are condemned: The light came into the world. Yet, people loved the dark rather than the light because their actions were evil
As for the cost of war (Using the 2005 and 2006 budgets) 2.47 trillion budget 1.5 trillion mandatory spending $960 billion discretionary 54% of the discretionary is national defense. The cost of the war is at 546 billion. This only reflects a total of 8 percent of our discretionary national defense. As it relates to the entire budget for 7 years - 3.15% Social Security? 20.64% Every dollar you gave the government for 7 years - 3cents to Iraq 21 cents to Social Security =)
No, it's not. The "implied/applied effect" on the market is not solid indisputable economics. In fact, the entire effect goes away if people simply start saying, "yes, this is a good war." It also increases as people say, "No, this is a bad war." So, if the people's thoughts/feelings have control over the effect, is it really a cost of war? The same cost can be implied if we didn't go to war and people kept wanting revenge for 9-11, so, accounting it to the war is ludicrous!
I am not talking about the market losses. I am talking about all expenditures that follow the war.
Revenge for 9-11?
So I guess the war in Afghanistan was just not good enough for us. If that's true, we are a dumb dumb country and therefore we deserve everything we get.
If you think the Iraq War was costly, just think how costly the Wall Street bail out will be. Led by the Democrats in Congress, the American taxpayer is about to spend twice as much as the entire Iraq War!!!!
Invading Iraq WAS NOT a bad thing to due. The invasion went smoothly and the people of Iraq were willing to listen to our ideas.
It was the mismanagement AFTER the invasion that has caused the insurgency and the deaths (both US and Iraqi) caused by it.
IF we had simply not gone in AS THOUGH WE OWNED the place, Iraq would be five years in RECOVERY (Post Saddam) and Iran would be VERY NERVOUS that their people might get an idea to overthrow the theocracy there.
Obama has no intention of getting us out of war. He intends to increase the war in Afghanistan and leave a soldier presence to "fight al qaeda" in Iraq. Obama is not anti-war at all.
After the invasion, the Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had ended its WMD programs in 1991 and had no active programs at the time of the invasion, but that they intended to resume production if and when the Iraq sanctions were lifted. Although some earlier degraded remnants of misplaced or abandoned WMD were found, they were not the weapons for which the coalition invaded. So the invasion was a mistake. The U.S. should of just kept tight sanctions on Iraq.
GO THANK YOUR PRESIDENT FOR GIVING YOUR COUNTRY A DEBT SO BIG IT KILLED YOUR COUNTRY. HAHAHAHA AND THEY DIDNT EVEN FOUND A SINGLE WMD how dumb can you people get. PRIANORM YOUR ABSOLUTELY RIGHT Dude God bless all GOODS AMERICANS!
Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9-11 if thats the case you should have attacked Saudi arabia as most of the terrorists were from there NOT 1 from Iraq . USA never got bad intell you were flagrantly lied to by "your" President and group
I like this spot, HOWEVER, the money being spent overseas should not go towards furthering the nanny state. Want to solve our problems? Let people in a free market (a true free market) do that.
You should keep your money, invest it how you like. Save it for your children. Spend it and stimulate.
If you oppose this war, oppose the federal reserve. They finance war.
Abolish the federal reserve. Government just gets in the way, even under the best intentions they hinder and slow productivity.
When are people going to figure out that it's not the war that's the money issue. It's the amount of debt we are in. Almost 50% of what we take in for taxes go to intrest on our debt. If we cut 10% of our military budget ($650b) we would have $65b to pay into debt and it would take 143 years to pay off. France is out of debt and running mostly on nuke power. France did a better job than us? How said do we look?
It's funny how liberals want more taxes so everyone can have all sorts of benefits like healthcare, but when it comes to freedom the liberals are the ones complaining that it costs to much to help another country.
This is costing us MUCH MORE than that dollar amount. And the cost to Iraq is just shameful. I am no longer proud to be an American. I am embarrassed. We are no more than self-serving bullies. But what is really sad is the target we are painting on our own soil. We are breeding future terrorists, and the Iraqi's did nothing to us. Those poor people.
Some facts to help you liberals put things in perspective.
From Wikipedia:
"The United States spends 3.7% of its GDP on its military, more than France's 2.6% and less than Saudi Arabia's 10%.[9] This is historically low for the United States since it peaked in 1944 at 37.8% of GDP (it reached the lowest point of 3.0% in 1999-2001). Even during the peak of the Vietnam War the percentage reached a high of 9.4% in 1968.[10]"
The total war is about $530 Billion over 5 years. That's 100 Billion per year (much of which would be spent on the military anyway -- we spend about 300-400B per year on the Military in peacetime).
100 billion per year is about 275 million per day.
Gee Shaq...please explian, in all of your worldly wisdom...just how your so-called "civil war" will accomplish all of your grandiose ideas. Remember to be specific.
Imagine we had not engaged Germany and Japan in World War 2. We might have avoided great expense, but at what cost? Would our lives be better today, had we not fought that war?
"Peace at any price" is not peace for long. Sometimes fighting is not only morally correct, but cheaper in the long run.
We were not attacked by Iraq. They had no way of doing so.
I think it is fallacy to put Saddam Hussein in the same class as Hitler.
Morally correct to attack a country that never attacked us...how?
If religion is the justification. Look at the amount of chrisitan in Iraq who were exterminated and had to flea. under Saddam they were more protected.
If you have any literature please let me know.
I would reccommend a book: Dying to Win by Robert Pape.
bin Laden declared war on us because we were in the "holy land", meaning Saudi Arabia.
Why were we there?
Well, Iraq had invaded Kuwait in 1990 and the world demanded we remove him. And we were left holding the bag with an ongoing war.
At the time of the Iraq War Resolution, al Qaeda indeed had a presence in Iraq.
And, while we did not find the quantity of WMD we expected, Iraq retained WMD program capability, and had attempted to obtain uranium to restart its nuclear program.
Again, Iraq did not attack us. Our reasoning for being there changes daily. It's about "our" oil, and the dollars tie to oil.
Our founders understood declaring war should not be left in the hands of one person. Not only because sending a child off to do what you think is "good", but the money involved.
The fed funds these wars and we pay the price later on. If George Bush had to collect directly from us, I doubt youd be praising this war.
Correct, no one person has the ability to declare a war. It takes Congress, as was the case here. You can pretend the Iraq War resolution was not really enacted, but that is your own chosen ignorance.
Yes, the entire Middle East is about oil. Without oil, nobody would care about Islamism, nor would it be a threat.
But, it's not our oil. It is their oil. Do you have some evidence to suggest we have taken their oil without paying for it, as the Democrats want us to do?
Had the Iraq War made is safe? The insurgency in Iraq has killed 4,000 U.S. Soldiers, and even with the surge working on the ground, American soldiers are still being killed there. For what? We got rid of Saddam, we established a democratic government and ''restored'' freedom. But the Bush Administration wanted us to stay, to defend a young democratic Iraq for nothing. The quantity of WMD's expected? What number was that?
Apparently you either forgot the situation in Iraq since 1990, or you are too young to know. Or, perhaps you are oblivious to reality, soaked in the memes of the New York Times and such.
We found no large quantities of WMD, but we certainly found Iraq maintained WMD production capability and sought to restart its nuclear program.
That, plus they were state sponsors of Islamists who have been attacking Americans for years.
All that made Saddam a strategic threat. With him gone, we are safer.
They killed Americans in the Gulf War maybe because it was a war? They were not going to sit back and let Kuwait be liberated. And it all happend in the Middle East, so Iraq didnt attack America. It had nothing to with the al Qaeda attacks directed on America. State sponsors of Islamists? the hell? Its called State sponsors of terrorism. And we called them that. Saddam wasnt the nicest guy, but we were not greated as liberators in Iraq, so we have 4,000+ soldiers dead. How much longer?
and as for al Qaeda having a presence in Iraq. al Qaeda has a very small one if true. Saddam Hussien has no respect for al Qaeda. Either the Bush Administration lied about the links or U.S. intelligence really got it wrong. In January 2003, United Nations weapons inspectors reported that they had found no indication that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons or an active program, playing down the Bush Administration threat. So 4,000 Americans are dead over lies or bad intelligence.
Well, I cannot recall a time since inception of CIA that they got a major item right. So, CIA fails, in my book.
Still, for a "small" presence, we have killed some 20,000 of them in the past few years.
Not so many left now, and their recruiting is way down. al Qaeda has a really bad international reputation for having declared war on us and lost so badly in Iraq.
LMAO. Victory? We can celebrate victory when the situation in Afgahnistan (the real war by the way since thats where the real al Qaeda was, you know, the group that actually attacks us) is going downhill? And most al Qaeda leaders that operated in Iraq are hiding in Iran.
Fingerlingduck the key to the puzzle is in your comment. If we leave now, before we get the last soldier out, Iran will rush in to occupy Iraq. Everything we've worked for, and those 4,000 soldiers had died for would mean nothing.
Von Clausewitz once said, "war is politics by other means". I believe his theories on war are still taught at Westpoint.
And, if Iran tries to close the Strait of Hormuz like they threatened, we're gonna have a real shooting war.
The situation in Afghanistan is far from going downhill. We are going to be conducting operations inside Pakistan soon, I predict, with the support of the Paki government.
the New Order and American Century came before the NWO and PNAC
watch?v=mOQXTZyi_P4
watch The Century of Self It's worth the 4 hours and then the Power of Nightmares at 3 hours long. Check out The Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis with Bill Moyers.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
On the other hand, discovering after-the-fact the WMD were not stockpiled does nothing to offset the fact he maintained the ability to produce WMD, and had a history of doing so.
Thus, Saddam indeed was a strategic threat.
Nobody wants to say it, but this war is basically over. All that screaming about civil war came to naught.
We have won, and only lost about 4,500 of our lives in doing so.
And, we have long term basing rights and an ally that can pretty much take care of itself now.
So RogerOnTheRight, you think it was worth the $10,000 debt for every man woman and child in America?
How about you pay my share. How about those that are for the war pay for it. The bill is 3 trillion, so put your money where your mouth is.
"strategic" threat to what strategy or goal? He was clearly no treat to Americans. Americans haven't won anything. We only lost lives and money. We won a huge debt.
America has WMD so any country can legally invade us, correct?
You price yourself quite cheaply. I would have thought freedom worth a bit more than $10k. But, if that is your view, go ahead and give it up.
The strategic interest in the entire Middle East is oil, if you had not noticed. Without oil, there would be no al Qaeda, nor would there have been a Desert Storm back in 1990.
How quickly they forget.
Legally invade us? Was it "legal" for Saddam to invade Kuwait, the event that started this thing?
I'd have more freedom without the war so I'd hardly call it an exchange of money for freedom. I'd call it an exchange of money and freedom for nothing.
3 trillion is quite a subsidy for oil. How much per gallon would it be with that hidden cost added?
For that 3 trillion America could be carbon free now. We could of been on an electron economy. Billions not flowing to Middle Eastern Dictators.
As for 91 we did at least imply that we didn't care about the invasion.
Less then 5% of the energy in gas is used to move the car. Far more efficient ways to move cars existed before gas as electric cars were first.
It may be hard for you to grasp complex ideas but that is no reason to condemn ideas just because they don't result in millions of deaths. Perhaps you like bananas? I hear simians do like them.
On the bright side people wouldn't be smart without people like you to compare themselves to. I for one would like to thank you for that Roger.
say that to someone who doesnt know the ins and outs of the iraqi economy after ur illegal colonialization ...
mean while u can keep on dreaming about how rightious u r , o' champion of democracy.. let the american lower and middle class pay for the war with there blood and tax paid money, and let the rich get richer and live the american dream on behalf of every body.
Actually, nearly 40% of all income taxes are paid by the top 1% of earners. It used to be lower, but the Bush "tax cuts for the rich" skewed the distribution ever higher.
I take it you do not favour democracy? Is totalitarianism your preferred form of government?
Given the sovereignty of the Iraqi government, and the recent acquiescence of Sunni and Shia militias to the Iraqi political system, nobody in their right might imagines this is anyone's "colony".
Actually Saddam HATED Al Queda they were a threat to him and wanted him DEAD after he invaded Kuwait. Osama and Saddam hated each other. Bush KNEW this but lied thats not bad intell its a bold lie. Osama publiclly said he would use Al queda to drive Saddam out of Kuwait . USA and ONLY USA let Al queda in Iraq and they are there now to stay
4,000 died so that the rich could make even more money. The oil was privatized. That was mission accomplished. The bases will stay to make sure Iraq doesn't attempt to reclaim their oil. How are the pipelines in Afghanistan going?
Al Qaeda is a pink elephant as in there is no such organisation.
Aired on BBC.. Al-Qaeda Doesn't Exist
watch?v=TTTgpsAs4_c
If you want a Democracy to go to war you lie to the people.
watch Iraq for sale and read confessions of an economic hit man.
If your reasoning is correct, wouldn't a we have declared war? I would also recommend "Blowback" by Chalmers Johnson. Recapof US involving itself in the affairs of other nations.
As for Hitler coming to power, look at the economic catastrophe that led to him gaining 98% of the vote.
What is the definition of success in Iraq?
Also "cheaper in the long run" is cold. Sending soldiers off to die in a war that was not declared is "cheaper" is a very immoral way to put a price tag on human life.
You are all over the map here. My simple point is that the measure of war is not only the economic cost, and that avoiding war at all costs is not always the correct path.
Still, this war is a legal war. Only Congress can authorize war, and they did so in this case. Is there some particular form required by the Constitution that makes a "declaration" valid?
Have you read the text of the law? You can find it easily on c-span. It is only six pages long and quite specifically authorizes military force and specifically references the War Powers Resolution.
The War Powers law was a response to Vietnam, to allow presidential authority for limited military action. After 60 days, the president must get congressional approval for an actual "war", so the bounds between commander-in-chief and Congress' war authority is defined.
The Iraq war resolution references the War Powers act to specify that they are establishing authority beyond those 60 days.
Congress is saying it is exerting its own authority to declare war.
Sounds good on paper, but that is not the way it pans out. President goes to war under his conditions. He sends soldiers off to die in the name of patriotism and security. Congress, goes along with this after 60 days for fear of seeming unpatriotic. Congress is not doing their job.
For one man to declare war is a sign that we are not a Republic, we are in a dictatorship.
When was the last time we went to "war"? That would be WWII.
Why you might ask.
Well there are laws against war profiteering, but if we are not at war then they don't apply.
See war is a racket. All the word play is to prevent prosecution.
Contractors have even intensionally killed troops and all without any repercussions. This goes way back. Look up Major General Smedley Darling Butler or read Confessions Of An Economic Hit Man.
How much did WW1 cost...WW2...Korea...Viet Nam...how much did the "No Fly" zones cost. Visit Iran??? Tell me max...give me your best guess/opinion as to why Iran has been working on a nuclear program for 20 plus years.
Once again I will quote you " if you want to get anything done in the world you have to work with people or countries that you do not agree with 100%. That's life" Thank you. now we can visit Iran and begin discussions. See, you and I are finding common ground. And by the way, that is the cost of freedom.
the "tourists" have gained power under the neo-cons, as has the euro. You probably don't want to talk about how the euro leads the dollar in value now under your chickenhawk, neo-con leadership.
one thing Reagan didn't cut too much is spending. Wow what a spender with other people's money. He sure did love that federal income tax, and that deficit spending which has reduced the value of the dollar below the euro. Yep, we live in a world now where the euro is the stronger currency, and it's better for the world to invest in europe. Great to have deficit spenders like Reagan and Bush isn't it?
"The United States spends 3.7% of its GDP on its military, more than France's 2.6% and less than Saudi Arabia's 10%.[9] This is historically low for the United States since it peaked in 1944 at 37.8% of GDP (it reached the lowest point of 3.0% in 1999-2001). Even during the peak of the Vietnam War the percentage reached a high of 9.4% in 1968.[10]"
So it reached its lowest point during the end of Clinton's 2nd term, just before we were attacked. Think maybe he cut it too much?!
war is great, it provides job for the economy... it's not like we're outsourcing guns, missiles, f-16s to Japan or India. Plus it gets rid of the riff raff.
And how do we pay the employees of these jobs? Through printing money out of thin air with no backing to it. Making the value of the dollar in your back pocket worth less and increasing inflation. This whole war is what created the high gas prices we see today. Production down in the middle east by half for oil. Value of the dollar dropping raising gas prices. We need to go back to the gold standard when our money had some real value.
well then, Reagan is the one who supported bin laden, and saddam. He wanted bin laden to defeat the russians, and saddam to defeat Iran so he gave them wmd support. So, let's just blame the whole thing on Reagan. Is he still your man?
Maxwest, bin Laden was fighting against our enemy (USSR) at the time Reagan gave him support. The fact that years after Reagan was out of office bin Laden started to operate against the US is in no way Reagan's fault. Are you saying Reagan should have forgot about the USSR and instead attacked bin Laden (who was our friend at the time) because one possible future existed where bin Laden would gain power under a Liberal US Pres. and be allowed to attack the USA over and over?
you and I just agreed that they "gained power" under Reagan. Maybe Reagan should think before giving power to "tourists" which is how your man pronounces it.
happy, you've also made a good point that if your going to count all attacks, then Reagan was attacked to, and he cut and ran in Lebanon after those attacks also. Is he your man?
Reagan was operating during another era when the USSR was the biggest threat to the USA. Reagan won that "war" and for that, and many other reasons, he is my man.
Maxwest, Al-Qaeda was founded in 1988, Beirut barracks bombing was in 1983. They are not related. To this day no one is really sure of who is responsible for Beirut although it is probably the same group that now supports Obama (Hezbollah). So who did you want Reagan to attack?
Explain again how Reagan is more responsible than Clinton for the growth of Al-Qaeda and the weakening of our military before 911.
"The United States spends 3.7% of its GDP on its military, more than France's 2.6% and less than Saudi Arabia's 10%.[9] This is historically low for the United States since it peaked in 1944 at 37.8% of GDP (it reached the lowest point of 3.0% in 1999-2001). Even during the peak of the Vietnam War the percentage reached a high of 9.4% in 1968.[10]"
So it reached its lowest point during the end of Clinton's 2nd term, just before we were attacked. Think maybe he cut it too much?!
you just said let these guys get away with it. If you had the capacity to read what we've said about the saudi nationals who attacked us you'd realize that your man bush jr. let the saudi's off the hook because he is a chickenhawk. You also just blamed bush for the attacks because you pointed out he did nothing leading up to the attacks. (You were easy bate on these points).
Maxwest, I did not say "let these guys get away with it". Saudi nationals and Saudi government are two different things and you know that, I hope. Bush had 8 months before the attacks, Clinton had 8 years. So if you want to give Bush 1/12 the blame as Clinton than fine. But the main thing a Pres can do is send a message by how he responds to these attacks and Bush had no attacks before 911 to respond to, Clinton had many.
I want my money back after ending the war. The US federal Reserve Bank is the main reason for our debt. If it was not for the malice money lending by the Corporate Central Bank (the Fed)we would not be in this False-Flag War that our Nazi Dictator George W. Bush put us in. Why does the Fed need to write the US Federal Government blank checks that have nothing to do with US infrastructure, or the benefit of American Taxpayers?
The benefit to American Taxpayers is no terrorist attacks on US soil for almost 7 years. I think we all know that Al-Qaeda still wants us all dead yet no attacks. That means that either they can no longer hurt us or they are too scared of the wrath of the US military. Either way we all own a big thank you to President Bush and our military for keeping us safe.
You are "HAPPY" because your drinking the Kool-Aid that this administration has givin you to drink!Open your eyes and do your own thinking!The American people have spoken and its over for Bush and his reckless policies!Look around you "HAPPY" and grow a brain.
So your such a right-wing NeoCon (Nazi) that you cannot see the collusion going on between Al-Qaeda, Oil Corporations, Oil Speculators, and Central Banks? 9/11 was such an inside job. 9/11 is the same as the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, the Maine blowing up in a Cuban Harbor. They were all artificially created wars in order for a very few Ultra-Rich families that desire more wealth and power added to their names. Your still thinking inside the box and watching too much of the TV box.
I wonder if you feel the war brings any shame to Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, Hussein (the ex Iraqi lead not the candidate) and his supporters? Doesn't it take (at least) two sides to have a war?
This is not a war, it's imperialism built upon a genocide.
September 11, 2001: Bin Laden Brother Attends Carlyle Group Conference:
brother of Osama bin Laden. [Observer, 6/16/2002; London Times, 5/8/2003] Former President George H. W. Bush, who makes speeches on behalf of the Carlyle Group and is also senior adviser to its Asian Partners fund [Wall Street Journal, 9/27/2001] , attended the conference the previous day...
It's quite obvious that those of us who want this to end are thinking of the people, and not the money. But it has to be explained to these tax and spend war mongers that they have already maxed out the economy's value, and bankrupting the once mighty dollar. It is not a choice anymore. Our currency is plummeting in value because of the tax and spend war spending. The neo con chickenhawks love the federal income tax
HarasProductions, I agree with you. Unfortunetly, for many people, money is the only thing they understand. You can talk about masses of people dying, but it doesn't resonate with them, but, if you talk about money...
*Just a teenagers perception on the world's craziness.
et encore on ne parle pas des atrocités commises ou des innocents tués du côté des irakiens, mais aussi américain avec ses jeunes soldats qui commettent des horreurs, leur vie sera changée à jamais si ils vivent
et leur famille, pensez aux familles qui perdent leurs enfants dans cette guerre inutile
avec tout cet argent, on aurait pu sauver le monde
seulement voila tout le monde s'en fout
et bien crevons tous dans ce monde voué à l'échec si l'on ne fait rien
question, how much of that money wasted on a war each day, is spent on supplies, food, and weapons made in america? We pay soldiers no matter where they are, home or away.
No way. That's over $4,500 each American considering the wars been going for 5 years. Sure wish that was in my pocket, not used for this. War should be a last resort. We are not fighting to protect our freedom. We are fighting based on lies. This war is completely unjustified even if it cost us nothing.
What "lies" are you talking about? WMD? Everyone knows Iraq had them, especially the village of Kurds that were nerve gassed to death. Since the war US forces have even found small supplies of nerve gas just not the complete stock pile (which was most likely moved to Syria). And it is well documented that Hussein supported terrorism outside and inside of his country. Not to mention the numerous UN sanctions that he was broke after the Gulf War. So what lies are you talking about?
"Had" them, back in the 1980's when we backed Hussein in his war against Iran, we supplied them with lots of WMD's. They moved to Syria? Just another propaganda lie until proven otherwise. There is zero proof Iraq had them in 2003, and "Everybody knows they had them" won't hold up in court. You can't argue that Iraq broke UN sanctions as the Bush admin clearly disregarded UN weapons inspectors that found NOTHING. Blindly believing everything we hear is what got us into this mess.
This mess is no attacks against the US for almost 7 years, a free Iraq with no Hussein and the USA is still the greatest country in the world. Pretty big mess.
Economy in the tank. People loosing their homes, gas prices sky high... Can't deny we're in a mess. Iraq being free is a joke, they're currently occupied by another country. Hey, I love the USA, and agree its the greatest country in the world, but we'll only stay that way if we own up to mistakes we've made. We've lost alot of respect from the rest of the world, and it pisses me off cause I know we're much better then our recent reputation. Get the last word if you must, my point is made. Peace.
happy, you rewarded clinton for all those years with no attacks, carter for all his service with no attacks, Lyndon Johnson for all those years with no attacks, and kennedy for all those years and no attacks. and the big mess is your dollar in your wallet is worth less every day thanks to your big goverment spender leader. good luck, this war spending has finally bankrupted this great nation.
Maxwest,of course I do not reward Clinton. We had a number of attacks under his terms including the Cole, first WTC bombing and the planning of the 911 attacks. Clinton is proof that if you let these guys get away with attacking us they well just keep coming back for more. Bush is proof that if you hit them back harder they stay in their holes. Carter had Iran hostage problems. Johnson got us into Vietnam and Kennedy attacked Cuba and started the Cuban missile crisis well before Al-Qaeda.
You are really dilusional. I have numerous friends in the U.S. military that have told me that Iraq is a nightmare. YES, IT IS A MESS. There is no stability and I think that it is wrong of you to only consider "American" lives. Yeah, we may have not been attacked for 7 years, but what about the poor, innocent Iraqis that are being killed in terrorist attacks because of our presence there. And, another thing...we supported Saddam when Iraq went to war with Iran. Even then, we knew he was crazy.
Yes we supported Saddam when he was fighting our enemy. Why is political tactic so hard for you guys to understand? Most times if you want to get anything done in the world you have to work with people or countries that you do not agree with 100%. That is life. Suck it up or live in a hole.
2,851,200,000,000 this is what i came up with this is since 2001 till now
programedmind 19 hours ago
Good video. Annoying audio.
TubingWithMyGnomies 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If we paid for the wars in $1 bills, we would need a stack that reaches the moon.
1000 $1 bills = 4.3 inches x 1 billion = 1 trillion dollars = 109,220 km
The moon is 384,403 km away.
cdoftx 3 months ago
Comment removed
cdoftx 3 months ago
Obama has spent more $ in his first year than every prez all put together. In history.
Look it up !
Lvduggo69 7 months ago
should give me a zillionth of that money, i'll live as a king for life. In fact if you gave every one 50 000 each, america would be far far better today.
o0POSH0o 9 months ago
i went to cost of war dot come for latest, and wish i knew how to upload it to You Tube, it would go viral.
aaronparmenter 1 year ago
Go to cost of war dot com for latest
aaronparmenter 1 year ago
Not sure how they figured these numbers were accurate. It's calculated that the cost of the Iraqi war is at 800'ish billion. Thats from it's start to today. If it was 720 million a day [8 yrs x 365 x 720] = 2+ trillion. Obviously your estimate is an incredibly large exaggeration. Also, they found out the amount in the stimulus bill [which irreperably failed] cost more than a war and fixed nothing. And the economy recession was caused by the housing crisis you idiots.
theaznfishy 1 year ago
Evangelical Protestants + Neocon Zionists = Disaster in Iraq
tacotony24 1 year ago
at least were safe lol
lawharrison 1 year ago
@lawharrison At least we can still type lol, lol.
djhenyo 1 year ago
@djhenyo hella
lawharrison 1 year ago
@lawharrison safe from what ?
luby305 1 year ago
yanks went to war thinking they cud make money from the oil in iraq
vanmaarwijk 1 year ago
And HOW much money did our Eternal President Obama spend in the first couple weeks of office? About a trillion. Has our economy been rescued by the Chosen One? Nope. Well, French the Llama, isn't that surprising?
kalamarikahunalord 2 years ago
did u notice the bottom of End the War in Iraq? total fatalities of American military in Iraq since March 2003: 4101
JEL1219L 2 years ago
If we assume that the US spent 700 billion on the war and the cost per watt per dollar of solar power is 3.5 dollars to the watt... the money could supply 1/3 of the US power needs... Meaning that they could have free electricity points for cars, meaning no need for oil.
m1leswilliams 2 years ago 3
@m1leswilliams and 3.5 is still a high price!
medicialberto 2 years ago
I know, I didn't want to be accused of playing with the figures to make it sound better. I can't believe someone actually gave my previous comment the thumbs down ? Save lives, make the world better, cheaper energy for the US, less dependency on oil... all good things !?
m1leswilliams 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice work. keep it up. mean time come for social media marketing for esteembpo**com FBHJ
jeraldmcginnis 2 years ago
Yes, 4101 total US fatalities, and 1.300.000 dead irakies, a small detail that the creator of the video forgot to mention...
dannet2008 2 years ago 8
It's "Iraqis", not Irakies.
PersianSpice 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
God loved the world He gave his only Son so that everyone who believes in him will not die but will have eternal life.God sent his Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but to save the world. 18 Those who believe in him won't be condemned. But those who don't believe are already condemned because they don't believe in God's only Son. 19 This is why people are condemned: The light came into the world. Yet, people loved the dark rather than the light because their actions were evil
valu777 2 years ago
good point -- also--if the americans had not spent all this money on aggression the financial crisis need never have happened
tumadoireacht 2 years ago 2
We should end war not cause of money. This just seems so unhuman.
AzoreanProud 2 years ago 2
its actually very human thats the sad thing!!!
irishkerry 2 years ago
america is in the war, cause they have alot of money.
seabear145 2 years ago
and 1000000 dead iraqis
mjalloxxxx 3 years ago 17
THIS IS SICKENING =(
AmidProcrastination 3 years ago
ThaCSBunny 3 years ago
The cost of the war is going to be in the trillions when everything is said and done.
All for nothing.
capitalistT00L 3 years ago
No, it's not. The "implied/applied effect" on the market is not solid indisputable economics. In fact, the entire effect goes away if people simply start saying, "yes, this is a good war." It also increases as people say, "No, this is a bad war." So, if the people's thoughts/feelings have control over the effect, is it really a cost of war? The same cost can be implied if we didn't go to war and people kept wanting revenge for 9-11, so, accounting it to the war is ludicrous!
ThaCSBunny 3 years ago
I am not talking about the market losses. I am talking about all expenditures that follow the war.
Revenge for 9-11?
So I guess the war in Afghanistan was just not good enough for us. If that's true, we are a dumb dumb country and therefore we deserve everything we get.
capitalistT00L 3 years ago 3
War is such a business. Is that why it exist, and it will exist 4ever, untill money exist.
We need to create a world without money.
AzoreanProud 2 years ago 3
One of the best video, VOTE OBAMA
lildude1708 3 years ago
If you think the Iraq War was costly, just think how costly the Wall Street bail out will be. Led by the Democrats in Congress, the American taxpayer is about to spend twice as much as the entire Iraq War!!!!
coolmom9 3 years ago
wow i wonder how rich i'll be if i had that money income in a year
darksore6 3 years ago
Americans are stupid and fat.
3Dinvent 3 years ago
and a pencil looking ugly mother fucker
PBWhatJarheadsDo 3 years ago
5up good work ...
paracite187 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BEST MUSIC EVER!!!!!!!
hbrtmran 3 years ago 3
Invading Iraq WAS NOT a bad thing to due. The invasion went smoothly and the people of Iraq were willing to listen to our ideas.
It was the mismanagement AFTER the invasion that has caused the insurgency and the deaths (both US and Iraqi) caused by it.
IF we had simply not gone in AS THOUGH WE OWNED the place, Iraq would be five years in RECOVERY (Post Saddam) and Iran would be VERY NERVOUS that their people might get an idea to overthrow the theocracy there.
hotFusionReaction 3 years ago 2
Obama has no intention of getting us out of war. He intends to increase the war in Afghanistan and leave a soldier presence to "fight al qaeda" in Iraq. Obama is not anti-war at all.
shellius 3 years ago
Bravo. Somebody around here 'gets' it.
marktwain4president 3 years ago
well of course he wants to fight in Afghanistan. Thats where al Qaeda is (the group that attacked us).
Nachman98 3 years ago
After the invasion, the Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had ended its WMD programs in 1991 and had no active programs at the time of the invasion, but that they intended to resume production if and when the Iraq sanctions were lifted. Although some earlier degraded remnants of misplaced or abandoned WMD were found, they were not the weapons for which the coalition invaded. So the invasion was a mistake. The U.S. should of just kept tight sanctions on Iraq.
Nachman98 3 years ago 3
Well that convinces me. I'm voting for Obama!
buffpatto1987 3 years ago
Cost of not being coverted or killed if refusing not covert: Priceless :)
fuhrc08 3 years ago
GO THANK YOUR PRESIDENT FOR GIVING YOUR COUNTRY A DEBT SO BIG IT KILLED YOUR COUNTRY. HAHAHAHA AND THEY DIDNT EVEN FOUND A SINGLE WMD how dumb can you people get. PRIANORM YOUR ABSOLUTELY RIGHT Dude God bless all GOODS AMERICANS!
buksingera 3 years ago 3
it was never about WMD my friend... its all about profiteering....
xelenty 3 years ago 2
Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9-11 if thats the case you should have attacked Saudi arabia as most of the terrorists were from there NOT 1 from Iraq . USA never got bad intell you were flagrantly lied to by "your" President and group
PriaNorm 3 years ago 2
Chose your next president more carefully next time because this one is very weak. Luckfully his 2nd mandate is over and he cant be re-elected
Veselchuna 3 years ago
I like this spot, HOWEVER, the money being spent overseas should not go towards furthering the nanny state. Want to solve our problems? Let people in a free market (a true free market) do that.
You should keep your money, invest it how you like. Save it for your children. Spend it and stimulate.
If you oppose this war, oppose the federal reserve. They finance war.
Abolish the federal reserve. Government just gets in the way, even under the best intentions they hinder and slow productivity.
TPMaloney80 3 years ago
When are people going to figure out that it's not the war that's the money issue. It's the amount of debt we are in. Almost 50% of what we take in for taxes go to intrest on our debt. If we cut 10% of our military budget ($650b) we would have $65b to pay into debt and it would take 143 years to pay off. France is out of debt and running mostly on nuke power. France did a better job than us? How said do we look?
Cenobyte40k 3 years ago
It's funny how liberals want more taxes so everyone can have all sorts of benefits like healthcare, but when it comes to freedom the liberals are the ones complaining that it costs to much to help another country.
ThreeNineNine 3 years ago
This is costing us MUCH MORE than that dollar amount. And the cost to Iraq is just shameful. I am no longer proud to be an American. I am embarrassed. We are no more than self-serving bullies. But what is really sad is the target we are painting on our own soil. We are breeding future terrorists, and the Iraqi's did nothing to us. Those poor people.
wildawake 3 years ago
Some facts to help you liberals put things in perspective.
From Wikipedia:
"The United States spends 3.7% of its GDP on its military, more than France's 2.6% and less than Saudi Arabia's 10%.[9] This is historically low for the United States since it peaked in 1944 at 37.8% of GDP (it reached the lowest point of 3.0% in 1999-2001). Even during the peak of the Vietnam War the percentage reached a high of 9.4% in 1968.[10]"
HappyLummox 3 years ago
The calculations here are wrong.
The total war is about $530 Billion over 5 years. That's 100 Billion per year (much of which would be spent on the military anyway -- we spend about 300-400B per year on the Military in peacetime).
100 billion per year is about 275 million per day.
DURound 3 years ago
140,000 people there
24 hours in a day
60 minutes in an hour
60 seconds in a minute
300 million people in the u.s
how much do we spend a day per capita?
just my two cents, no pun intended
AnnabelleBelieve 3 years ago
Imagine had we not fought WW2. The money we might have saved.
Besides which, German is not an entirely unreasonable language.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
Shit is true. So true. Respect.
weezyfsgt 3 years ago
Gee Shaq...please explian, in all of your worldly wisdom...just how your so-called "civil war" will accomplish all of your grandiose ideas. Remember to be specific.
bbmtge 3 years ago
You think this is high? Wait till you tally up the cost of *not* war.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
Please explain the *not* war.
TPMaloney80 3 years ago
I made a comment to this effect yesterday.
Imagine we had not engaged Germany and Japan in World War 2. We might have avoided great expense, but at what cost? Would our lives be better today, had we not fought that war?
"Peace at any price" is not peace for long. Sometimes fighting is not only morally correct, but cheaper in the long run.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
We engaged in WWII because we were attacked.
We were not attacked by Iraq. They had no way of doing so.
I think it is fallacy to put Saddam Hussein in the same class as Hitler.
Morally correct to attack a country that never attacked us...how?
If religion is the justification. Look at the amount of chrisitan in Iraq who were exterminated and had to flea. under Saddam they were more protected.
If you have any literature please let me know.
I would reccommend a book: Dying to Win by Robert Pape.
TPMaloney80 3 years ago
We were attacked by Japan, but not by Germany.
Germany simply declared war on us, and we reciprocated.
Al Qaeda also declared war on us, in the early 1990s.
Why did al Qaeda declare war on us? Do you happen to know? Care to venture a guess?
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
What does Al Qaeda have to do with Iraq?
There were no Al Qaeda in Iraq.
There was no connection with 911.
There were no WMD's
They had no army , navy or military.
TPMaloney80 3 years ago
bin Laden declared war on us because we were in the "holy land", meaning Saudi Arabia.
Why were we there?
Well, Iraq had invaded Kuwait in 1990 and the world demanded we remove him. And we were left holding the bag with an ongoing war.
At the time of the Iraq War Resolution, al Qaeda indeed had a presence in Iraq.
And, while we did not find the quantity of WMD we expected, Iraq retained WMD program capability, and had attempted to obtain uranium to restart its nuclear program.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
They declared war on us, because we were on their holy land. The nerve of them.
The world "demanded" us into Kuwait? That was not our fight. We should not have been involved. We were left "holding the bag" = Blowback.
We thought they had WMD's because we gave them to him.
You can argue all of the maybe's you want. We were not attacked.
TPMaloney80 3 years ago
"Their" holy land? The Saudi government invited us there, and al Qaeda does not represent Saudi Arabia, does it?
Or does it? In your mind, does al Qaeda have some legitimacy in this?
Yes, the world insisted we liberate Kuwait, and did leave us holding the back, to defend the no-fly zone, etc.
I have long said, it's too bad Saddam invaded Kuwait to begin with. He started this mess, but we are finishing it.
Of course we were attacked. In 1993 and 2001. And other times.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
Again, Iraq did not attack us. Our reasoning for being there changes daily. It's about "our" oil, and the dollars tie to oil.
Our founders understood declaring war should not be left in the hands of one person. Not only because sending a child off to do what you think is "good", but the money involved.
The fed funds these wars and we pay the price later on. If George Bush had to collect directly from us, I doubt youd be praising this war.
We are in a place financially we have never been.
TPMaloney80 3 years ago
Correct, no one person has the ability to declare a war. It takes Congress, as was the case here. You can pretend the Iraq War resolution was not really enacted, but that is your own chosen ignorance.
Yes, the entire Middle East is about oil. Without oil, nobody would care about Islamism, nor would it be a threat.
But, it's not our oil. It is their oil. Do you have some evidence to suggest we have taken their oil without paying for it, as the Democrats want us to do?
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
Had the Iraq War made is safe? The insurgency in Iraq has killed 4,000 U.S. Soldiers, and even with the surge working on the ground, American soldiers are still being killed there. For what? We got rid of Saddam, we established a democratic government and ''restored'' freedom. But the Bush Administration wanted us to stay, to defend a young democratic Iraq for nothing. The quantity of WMD's expected? What number was that?
Fingerlingduck 3 years ago
Apparently you either forgot the situation in Iraq since 1990, or you are too young to know. Or, perhaps you are oblivious to reality, soaked in the memes of the New York Times and such.
We found no large quantities of WMD, but we certainly found Iraq maintained WMD production capability and sought to restart its nuclear program.
That, plus they were state sponsors of Islamists who have been attacking Americans for years.
All that made Saddam a strategic threat. With him gone, we are safer.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
They killed Americans in the Gulf War maybe because it was a war? They were not going to sit back and let Kuwait be liberated. And it all happend in the Middle East, so Iraq didnt attack America. It had nothing to with the al Qaeda attacks directed on America. State sponsors of Islamists? the hell? Its called State sponsors of terrorism. And we called them that. Saddam wasnt the nicest guy, but we were not greated as liberators in Iraq, so we have 4,000+ soldiers dead. How much longer?
Fingerlingduck 3 years ago
and as for al Qaeda having a presence in Iraq. al Qaeda has a very small one if true. Saddam Hussien has no respect for al Qaeda. Either the Bush Administration lied about the links or U.S. intelligence really got it wrong. In January 2003, United Nations weapons inspectors reported that they had found no indication that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons or an active program, playing down the Bush Administration threat. So 4,000 Americans are dead over lies or bad intelligence.
Fingerlingduck 3 years ago 2
Well, I cannot recall a time since inception of CIA that they got a major item right. So, CIA fails, in my book.
Still, for a "small" presence, we have killed some 20,000 of them in the past few years.
Not so many left now, and their recruiting is way down. al Qaeda has a really bad international reputation for having declared war on us and lost so badly in Iraq.
I love the smell of victory in the morning.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
LMAO. Victory? We can celebrate victory when the situation in Afgahnistan (the real war by the way since thats where the real al Qaeda was, you know, the group that actually attacks us) is going downhill? And most al Qaeda leaders that operated in Iraq are hiding in Iran.
Fingerlingduck 3 years ago
Fingerlingduck the key to the puzzle is in your comment. If we leave now, before we get the last soldier out, Iran will rush in to occupy Iraq. Everything we've worked for, and those 4,000 soldiers had died for would mean nothing.
Von Clausewitz once said, "war is politics by other means". I believe his theories on war are still taught at Westpoint.
And, if Iran tries to close the Strait of Hormuz like they threatened, we're gonna have a real shooting war.
God bless our troops!
Charonveritas 3 years ago
The situation in Afghanistan is far from going downhill. We are going to be conducting operations inside Pakistan soon, I predict, with the support of the Paki government.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
You need certain background knowledge to understand how we got here.
As for war I'd recommend reading what Major General Smedley Darling Butler had to say
Something forgotten 4:00 - 10:00
the New Order and American Century came before the NWO and PNAC
watch?v=mOQXTZyi_P4
watch The Century of Self It's worth the 4 hours and then the Power of Nightmares at 3 hours long. Check out The Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis with Bill Moyers.
abram730 3 years ago
All that money isn't going in a pit and being burned... war profiteers are making out like bandits.
War is a racket, as in it predicated on making money.
Bin Laden's handler was in the ISI
SAAG Paper no. 2417. 19-Oct-2007
How do you get a democracy to go to war?
watch?v=d3xlb6_0OEs
8:28 scare the public into war.. or lie "he's got a gun"(WMD).
18:50 Obliterate posse comitatus
19:40 outsourcing the command structure of the US Military to the G20 and that includes Saudi Arabia.
abram730 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
On the other hand, discovering after-the-fact the WMD were not stockpiled does nothing to offset the fact he maintained the ability to produce WMD, and had a history of doing so.
Thus, Saddam indeed was a strategic threat.
Nobody wants to say it, but this war is basically over. All that screaming about civil war came to naught.
We have won, and only lost about 4,500 of our lives in doing so.
And, we have long term basing rights and an ally that can pretty much take care of itself now.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
So RogerOnTheRight, you think it was worth the $10,000 debt for every man woman and child in America?
How about you pay my share. How about those that are for the war pay for it. The bill is 3 trillion, so put your money where your mouth is.
"strategic" threat to what strategy or goal? He was clearly no treat to Americans. Americans haven't won anything. We only lost lives and money. We won a huge debt.
America has WMD so any country can legally invade us, correct?
abram730 3 years ago
You price yourself quite cheaply. I would have thought freedom worth a bit more than $10k. But, if that is your view, go ahead and give it up.
The strategic interest in the entire Middle East is oil, if you had not noticed. Without oil, there would be no al Qaeda, nor would there have been a Desert Storm back in 1990.
How quickly they forget.
Legally invade us? Was it "legal" for Saddam to invade Kuwait, the event that started this thing?
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
I'd have more freedom without the war so I'd hardly call it an exchange of money for freedom. I'd call it an exchange of money and freedom for nothing.
3 trillion is quite a subsidy for oil. How much per gallon would it be with that hidden cost added?
For that 3 trillion America could be carbon free now. We could of been on an electron economy. Billions not flowing to Middle Eastern Dictators.
As for 91 we did at least imply that we didn't care about the invasion.
abram730 3 years ago 3
An electron economy? That's quite a vision there. Perhaps you can get a copy of SimCity and just create it virtually.
Utopia never fares well in the face of reality.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
Less then 5% of the energy in gas is used to move the car. Far more efficient ways to move cars existed before gas as electric cars were first.
It may be hard for you to grasp complex ideas but that is no reason to condemn ideas just because they don't result in millions of deaths. Perhaps you like bananas? I hear simians do like them.
On the bright side people wouldn't be smart without people like you to compare themselves to. I for one would like to thank you for that Roger.
abram730 3 years ago
Once again, the Left demonstrates its vacuousness by resorting to personal invective.
At least you guys are consistent. And the pattern is simple:
1. Crank out mindless slogans. Catchy rhymes are preferred, since your audience prefers not to think.
2. Repeat incessantly, in the face of history and logic. Cling to the mantra.
3. When that fails, attack personally.
You must have received the People's Hero award somewhere along the line.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Oh, and please tell us how wind power is so much more efficient than petroleum.
Feel free to use market examples to support your thesis.
Or perhaps solar panels for our automobiles. Now, there is a real winner!
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
RogerOnTheReich - "solar panels for our automobiles" wow! you are really stupid!
Kevin1354 3 years ago
Well, Kevin, you are quite the wordsmith, aren't you?
Very impressive turn of phrase.
And, of course, it simply reaffirms the tendency of the Left to substitute personal invective for logic.
Keep up the fine work!
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
oh, and that really justifies going to war to steal the middle east's natural resources.
what you dont accept being done to you, you shouldnt accept it being done to others.
sorealitty 3 years ago
We did not go to war to "steal" anyone's oil. Iraq recently sold most of its current production to -- wait for it-- China and India.
So much for theft.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
say that to someone who doesnt know the ins and outs of the iraqi economy after ur illegal colonialization ...
mean while u can keep on dreaming about how rightious u r , o' champion of democracy.. let the american lower and middle class pay for the war with there blood and tax paid money, and let the rich get richer and live the american dream on behalf of every body.
sorealitty 3 years ago
Actually, nearly 40% of all income taxes are paid by the top 1% of earners. It used to be lower, but the Bush "tax cuts for the rich" skewed the distribution ever higher.
I take it you do not favour democracy? Is totalitarianism your preferred form of government?
Given the sovereignty of the Iraqi government, and the recent acquiescence of Sunni and Shia militias to the Iraqi political system, nobody in their right might imagines this is anyone's "colony".
You need fresher mindless rhetoric.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
They can be sovereign as long as they use dollars.
It's all about the money and the control of making it.
It's a big idea all in the process as you think.
wreckerpecker 3 years ago
Your comment is something of a non sequiter.
Iraq uses their Dinar, which has been relatively stable since 2003.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
keep telling yourself that.
atripa645 3 years ago
It's not so complex. You can look it up and reason for yourself. The Dinar is the Iraqi currency. Relatively stable.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
Actually Saddam HATED Al Queda they were a threat to him and wanted him DEAD after he invaded Kuwait. Osama and Saddam hated each other. Bush KNEW this but lied thats not bad intell its a bold lie. Osama publiclly said he would use Al queda to drive Saddam out of Kuwait . USA and ONLY USA let Al queda in Iraq and they are there now to stay
PriaNorm 3 years ago
4,000 died so that the rich could make even more money. The oil was privatized. That was mission accomplished. The bases will stay to make sure Iraq doesn't attempt to reclaim their oil. How are the pipelines in Afghanistan going?
Al Qaeda is a pink elephant as in there is no such organisation.
Aired on BBC.. Al-Qaeda Doesn't Exist
watch?v=TTTgpsAs4_c
If you want a Democracy to go to war you lie to the people.
watch Iraq for sale and read confessions of an economic hit man.
abram730 3 years ago 2
If your reasoning is correct, wouldn't a we have declared war? I would also recommend "Blowback" by Chalmers Johnson. Recapof US involving itself in the affairs of other nations.
As for Hitler coming to power, look at the economic catastrophe that led to him gaining 98% of the vote.
What is the definition of success in Iraq?
Also "cheaper in the long run" is cold. Sending soldiers off to die in a war that was not declared is "cheaper" is a very immoral way to put a price tag on human life.
TPMaloney80 3 years ago
You are all over the map here. My simple point is that the measure of war is not only the economic cost, and that avoiding war at all costs is not always the correct path.
Still, this war is a legal war. Only Congress can authorize war, and they did so in this case. Is there some particular form required by the Constitution that makes a "declaration" valid?
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
A vote makes it valid. The vote to declare war was not approved.
TPMaloney80 3 years ago
Public Law 107-243 was passed by the House October 10, 2002, by the Senate October 11, 2002 and was signed into law October 16, 2002.
It authorizes use of force in Iraq, precisely the actions we are taking.
If you want to say it is not war, then fine. We are not at war.
But, if this is war, it is authorized by Congress by that law.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
Congress did not vote for the authority to go to war.
TPMaloney80 3 years ago
Have you read the text of the law? You can find it easily on c-span. It is only six pages long and quite specifically authorizes military force and specifically references the War Powers Resolution.
No-brainer, really.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
The war powers resolution is an unconstitutional law. That law side more with a dictatorship than a Republic.
TPMaloney80 3 years ago
The War Powers law was a response to Vietnam, to allow presidential authority for limited military action. After 60 days, the president must get congressional approval for an actual "war", so the bounds between commander-in-chief and Congress' war authority is defined.
The Iraq war resolution references the War Powers act to specify that they are establishing authority beyond those 60 days.
Congress is saying it is exerting its own authority to declare war.
Do you get it yet?
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
Sounds good on paper, but that is not the way it pans out. President goes to war under his conditions. He sends soldiers off to die in the name of patriotism and security. Congress, goes along with this after 60 days for fear of seeming unpatriotic. Congress is not doing their job.
For one man to declare war is a sign that we are not a Republic, we are in a dictatorship.
Do you get it?
TPMaloney80 3 years ago
The war resolution in this case was passed and signed into law October of 2002. Our invasion operation began around March 20, 2003.
Congress acted five months in advance.
So, yes, I get it. Apparently you don't.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
Here! Here!
At least ONE person payed attention in class!
hotFusionReaction 3 years ago
When was the last time we went to "war"? That would be WWII.
Why you might ask.
Well there are laws against war profiteering, but if we are not at war then they don't apply.
See war is a racket. All the word play is to prevent prosecution.
Contractors have even intensionally killed troops and all without any repercussions. This goes way back. Look up Major General Smedley Darling Butler or read Confessions Of An Economic Hit Man.
abram730 3 years ago 4
How much did WW1 cost...WW2...Korea...Viet Nam...how much did the "No Fly" zones cost. Visit Iran??? Tell me max...give me your best guess/opinion as to why Iran has been working on a nuclear program for 20 plus years.
bbmtge 3 years ago
Once again I will quote you " if you want to get anything done in the world you have to work with people or countries that you do not agree with 100%. That's life" Thank you. now we can visit Iran and begin discussions. See, you and I are finding common ground. And by the way, that is the cost of freedom.
maxwest333 3 years ago
the "tourists" have gained power under the neo-cons, as has the euro. You probably don't want to talk about how the euro leads the dollar in value now under your chickenhawk, neo-con leadership.
maxwest333 3 years ago
one thing Reagan didn't cut too much is spending. Wow what a spender with other people's money. He sure did love that federal income tax, and that deficit spending which has reduced the value of the dollar below the euro. Yep, we live in a world now where the euro is the stronger currency, and it's better for the world to invest in europe. Great to have deficit spenders like Reagan and Bush isn't it?
maxwest333 3 years ago
Well I guess freedom isn't free is it?
HappyLummox 3 years ago
Happy, freedom isn't free, free is free, but freedom is freedom. Notice how they're even spelled differently.
maxwest333 3 years ago
You and I just agreed that there is a cost to freedom. That is a big step for a Bush hater to make. Hats off to you.
HappyLummox 3 years ago
The war has nothing to do with freedom. Freedom is declining in the world, not growing.
Freedom is declining in America through gradualism as the government at all levels regulates more and more.
Skinski7 3 years ago
do you feel more free now than before?
evilblades 3 years ago
The important thing is that I do not feel less free than before.
HappyLummox 3 years ago
From Wikipedia:
"The United States spends 3.7% of its GDP on its military, more than France's 2.6% and less than Saudi Arabia's 10%.[9] This is historically low for the United States since it peaked in 1944 at 37.8% of GDP (it reached the lowest point of 3.0% in 1999-2001). Even during the peak of the Vietnam War the percentage reached a high of 9.4% in 1968.[10]"
So it reached its lowest point during the end of Clinton's 2nd term, just before we were attacked. Think maybe he cut it too much?!
HappyLummox 3 years ago
war is great, it provides job for the economy... it's not like we're outsourcing guns, missiles, f-16s to Japan or India. Plus it gets rid of the riff raff.
massiveBrains 3 years ago
And how do we pay the employees of these jobs? Through printing money out of thin air with no backing to it. Making the value of the dollar in your back pocket worth less and increasing inflation. This whole war is what created the high gas prices we see today. Production down in the middle east by half for oil. Value of the dollar dropping raising gas prices. We need to go back to the gold standard when our money had some real value.
therealnrm 3 years ago
Dumb Yank your owned.
U.S. Code collection TITLE 28 , 3002. Definitions
(15) "United States" means—
(A) a Federal corporation.
Guess who owns the US Corporation. Your lucky I'm telling you this. Not many Americans know that the Queen of England owns the US.
Queen Elizabeth controls and has amended U.S. Social Security, S.I. 1997 NO.1778 The Social Security ( United States of America)
You need to wake up and understand Bush is the president of a corporation owned by the Brits.
teabowbraine 3 years ago
well then, Reagan is the one who supported bin laden, and saddam. He wanted bin laden to defeat the russians, and saddam to defeat Iran so he gave them wmd support. So, let's just blame the whole thing on Reagan. Is he still your man?
maxwest333 3 years ago
Maxwest, bin Laden was fighting against our enemy (USSR) at the time Reagan gave him support. The fact that years after Reagan was out of office bin Laden started to operate against the US is in no way Reagan's fault. Are you saying Reagan should have forgot about the USSR and instead attacked bin Laden (who was our friend at the time) because one possible future existed where bin Laden would gain power under a Liberal US Pres. and be allowed to attack the USA over and over?
HappyLummox 3 years ago
you and I just agreed that they "gained power" under Reagan. Maybe Reagan should think before giving power to "tourists" which is how your man pronounces it.
maxwest333 3 years ago
The liberal US President he gained power under was Clinton not Reagan. Sorry for not spelling it out for you in my other post.
HappyLummox 3 years ago
happy, you've also made a good point that if your going to count all attacks, then Reagan was attacked to, and he cut and ran in Lebanon after those attacks also. Is he your man?
maxwest333 3 years ago
Reagan was operating during another era when the USSR was the biggest threat to the USA. Reagan won that "war" and for that, and many other reasons, he is my man.
HappyLummox 3 years ago
reagan was operating during another era? that's how it is addressed that he cut and ran from lebanon? after they attacked our Marines?
maxwest333 3 years ago
Maxwest, Al-Qaeda was founded in 1988, Beirut barracks bombing was in 1983. They are not related. To this day no one is really sure of who is responsible for Beirut although it is probably the same group that now supports Obama (Hezbollah). So who did you want Reagan to attack?
Explain again how Reagan is more responsible than Clinton for the growth of Al-Qaeda and the weakening of our military before 911.
HappyLummox 3 years ago
From Wikipedia:
"The United States spends 3.7% of its GDP on its military, more than France's 2.6% and less than Saudi Arabia's 10%.[9] This is historically low for the United States since it peaked in 1944 at 37.8% of GDP (it reached the lowest point of 3.0% in 1999-2001). Even during the peak of the Vietnam War the percentage reached a high of 9.4% in 1968.[10]"
So it reached its lowest point during the end of Clinton's 2nd term, just before we were attacked. Think maybe he cut it too much?!
HappyLummox 3 years ago
you just said let these guys get away with it. If you had the capacity to read what we've said about the saudi nationals who attacked us you'd realize that your man bush jr. let the saudi's off the hook because he is a chickenhawk. You also just blamed bush for the attacks because you pointed out he did nothing leading up to the attacks. (You were easy bate on these points).
maxwest333 3 years ago
Maxwest, I did not say "let these guys get away with it". Saudi nationals and Saudi government are two different things and you know that, I hope. Bush had 8 months before the attacks, Clinton had 8 years. So if you want to give Bush 1/12 the blame as Clinton than fine. But the main thing a Pres can do is send a message by how he responds to these attacks and Bush had no attacks before 911 to respond to, Clinton had many.
HappyLummox 3 years ago
I figure I'm already under surveillance (we ALL are) ... I posted this in a blog on Yuwie - I am Evie the evil Evelyn and I will not be silent.
2emc 3 years ago
the cost of this war is the next great depression.
maxwest333 3 years ago
I want my money back after ending the war. The US federal Reserve Bank is the main reason for our debt. If it was not for the malice money lending by the Corporate Central Bank (the Fed)we would not be in this False-Flag War that our Nazi Dictator George W. Bush put us in. Why does the Fed need to write the US Federal Government blank checks that have nothing to do with US infrastructure, or the benefit of American Taxpayers?
M3minusGrowth 3 years ago 3
The benefit to American Taxpayers is no terrorist attacks on US soil for almost 7 years. I think we all know that Al-Qaeda still wants us all dead yet no attacks. That means that either they can no longer hurt us or they are too scared of the wrath of the US military. Either way we all own a big thank you to President Bush and our military for keeping us safe.
HappyLummox 3 years ago
You are "HAPPY" because your drinking the Kool-Aid that this administration has givin you to drink!Open your eyes and do your own thinking!The American people have spoken and its over for Bush and his reckless policies!Look around you "HAPPY" and grow a brain.
tvtownvideo 3 years ago
So your such a right-wing NeoCon (Nazi) that you cannot see the collusion going on between Al-Qaeda, Oil Corporations, Oil Speculators, and Central Banks? 9/11 was such an inside job. 9/11 is the same as the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, the Maine blowing up in a Cuban Harbor. They were all artificially created wars in order for a very few Ultra-Rich families that desire more wealth and power added to their names. Your still thinking inside the box and watching too much of the TV box.
M3minusGrowth 3 years ago 2
"It is not what the Government can do for YOU, it is what YOU can do for for Government."
♫CHECK OUT THE VIDEO RESPONSE WITH
the Statue of Liberty♫
Kucinich2008 3 years ago
This war is a disgrace for humanity.
It brings not only Shame on America but shame on all of us living on the same planet.
pionata 3 years ago 4
Pionata,
I wonder if you feel the war brings any shame to Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, Hussein (the ex Iraqi lead not the candidate) and his supporters? Doesn't it take (at least) two sides to have a war?
HappyLummox 3 years ago
@HappyLummox
This is not a war, it's imperialism built upon a genocide.
September 11, 2001: Bin Laden Brother Attends Carlyle Group Conference:
brother of Osama bin Laden. [Observer, 6/16/2002; London Times, 5/8/2003] Former President George H. W. Bush, who makes speeches on behalf of the Carlyle Group and is also senior adviser to its Asian Partners fund [Wall Street Journal, 9/27/2001] , attended the conference the previous day...
Bush and Ladens, hands in hands, since the 80s.
pionata 1 year ago
It's quite obvious that those of us who want this to end are thinking of the people, and not the money. But it has to be explained to these tax and spend war mongers that they have already maxed out the economy's value, and bankrupting the once mighty dollar. It is not a choice anymore. Our currency is plummeting in value because of the tax and spend war spending. The neo con chickenhawks love the federal income tax
maxwest333 3 years ago 2
HarasProductions, I agree with you. Unfortunetly, for many people, money is the only thing they understand. You can talk about masses of people dying, but it doesn't resonate with them, but, if you talk about money...
*Just a teenagers perception on the world's craziness.
livthebestestever 3 years ago
et encore on ne parle pas des atrocités commises ou des innocents tués du côté des irakiens, mais aussi américain avec ses jeunes soldats qui commettent des horreurs, leur vie sera changée à jamais si ils vivent
et leur famille, pensez aux familles qui perdent leurs enfants dans cette guerre inutile
avec tout cet argent, on aurait pu sauver le monde
seulement voila tout le monde s'en fout
et bien crevons tous dans ce monde voué à l'échec si l'on ne fait rien
FRANCE WAS RIGHT !
bapt7859 3 years ago
and germany :P
Shiggyk1nG 3 years ago
You're right the war must end
but i want to understand one thing .
you want that the war ends just for the money that your governement is spending
but what about the more than 1 million people who died
what about the Iraqis what about the children who looses eveything
you talk about elmenatry schhols ...but what about the descuction and genocide tha's still hapening
AS ALWAYS YOU CARE MORE ABOUT DOLLARS THAN INOCENTS
the war must be stoped to stop the genocied there not bcs of the money
HarasProductions 3 years ago 4
No dont stop i want to get some
bartman1775 3 years ago
Revolution is needed, and will come.
MNjuggalo420 3 years ago
Wasted money for killing people.
my45ze 3 years ago
question, how much of that money wasted on a war each day, is spent on supplies, food, and weapons made in america? We pay soldiers no matter where they are, home or away.
thesongoftime 3 years ago
That's $2.50 a day for each American.
Worth every bit of it.
uberalles2 3 years ago
No way. That's over $4,500 each American considering the wars been going for 5 years. Sure wish that was in my pocket, not used for this. War should be a last resort. We are not fighting to protect our freedom. We are fighting based on lies. This war is completely unjustified even if it cost us nothing.
brucedoscher 3 years ago 2
What "lies" are you talking about? WMD? Everyone knows Iraq had them, especially the village of Kurds that were nerve gassed to death. Since the war US forces have even found small supplies of nerve gas just not the complete stock pile (which was most likely moved to Syria). And it is well documented that Hussein supported terrorism outside and inside of his country. Not to mention the numerous UN sanctions that he was broke after the Gulf War. So what lies are you talking about?
HappyLummox 3 years ago
"Had" them, back in the 1980's when we backed Hussein in his war against Iran, we supplied them with lots of WMD's. They moved to Syria? Just another propaganda lie until proven otherwise. There is zero proof Iraq had them in 2003, and "Everybody knows they had them" won't hold up in court. You can't argue that Iraq broke UN sanctions as the Bush admin clearly disregarded UN weapons inspectors that found NOTHING. Blindly believing everything we hear is what got us into this mess.
brucedoscher 3 years ago
This mess is no attacks against the US for almost 7 years, a free Iraq with no Hussein and the USA is still the greatest country in the world. Pretty big mess.
HappyLummox 3 years ago
Economy in the tank. People loosing their homes, gas prices sky high... Can't deny we're in a mess. Iraq being free is a joke, they're currently occupied by another country. Hey, I love the USA, and agree its the greatest country in the world, but we'll only stay that way if we own up to mistakes we've made. We've lost alot of respect from the rest of the world, and it pisses me off cause I know we're much better then our recent reputation. Get the last word if you must, my point is made. Peace.
brucedoscher 3 years ago 3
happy, you rewarded clinton for all those years with no attacks, carter for all his service with no attacks, Lyndon Johnson for all those years with no attacks, and kennedy for all those years and no attacks. and the big mess is your dollar in your wallet is worth less every day thanks to your big goverment spender leader. good luck, this war spending has finally bankrupted this great nation.
maxwest333 3 years ago
Maxwest,of course I do not reward Clinton. We had a number of attacks under his terms including the Cole, first WTC bombing and the planning of the 911 attacks. Clinton is proof that if you let these guys get away with attacking us they well just keep coming back for more. Bush is proof that if you hit them back harder they stay in their holes. Carter had Iran hostage problems. Johnson got us into Vietnam and Kennedy attacked Cuba and started the Cuban missile crisis well before Al-Qaeda.
HappyLummox 3 years ago
You are really dilusional. I have numerous friends in the U.S. military that have told me that Iraq is a nightmare. YES, IT IS A MESS. There is no stability and I think that it is wrong of you to only consider "American" lives. Yeah, we may have not been attacked for 7 years, but what about the poor, innocent Iraqis that are being killed in terrorist attacks because of our presence there. And, another thing...we supported Saddam when Iraq went to war with Iran. Even then, we knew he was crazy.
Tica222 3 years ago
Yes we supported Saddam when he was fighting our enemy. Why is political tactic so hard for you guys to understand? Most times if you want to get anything done in the world you have to work with people or countries that you do not agree with 100%. That is life. Suck it up or live in a hole.
HappyLummox 3 years ago
i like to add and multiply too!
Tamaerick 3 years ago
or get lasik laser surgery
pottergella 3 years ago