Critics of the war in Iraq often complain about the “escalating cost of the war.” Listening to them, you’d never know that the war is one of the least expensive in American history.
Robert Whaples, professor of economics at Wake Forest University, has measured the cost of each major American war up through the first Gulf War. We took these costs and compared them to the cost of the Iraq war and found that the Iraq experience has consumed a smaller percentage of GDP (just 2 percent of one year’s wealth creation) than every other American war except the first Gulf War (which measured just 1 percent of GDP).
This stands in stark contrast to the Vietnam experience, which opponents have often attempted to liken to the Iraq war. Vietnam comprised a much heartier 12 percent of GDP at the time. Other conflicts, such as World War II, took a remarkable 130 percent of a year’s GDP to see through to success.
The work is not done in Iraq, and the financial costs will grow beyond the $251 billion we have spent so far. The real cost, of course, is in human lives, manifested in the debate about whether it is worth losing a few thousand American lives in order to liberate 23 million people. But the data are clear; any attempt to discredit this war based on its effect on the U.S. economy is an unnecessary distraction.
Last edited by Confrontational : February 13th, 2007 at 03:02 PM.
What a crock of shit this post is and you know it.
First you dismiss the "worth" of a few thousand American lives as if you were applying some kind of math forumla to a problem. Easy to do when nobody in your family pays that price, I suppose.
Then you make some grand claim as to the "liberation" of 23 million people - is that the "reason du jour" now? Since you label those whose lives were sacrificed, why not label the people who we "liberated"? Take your pick: Iran-aligned citizens, Muslim extremeists, terrorists.
I guess when your claim that the War would cost no more than $50 billion and no lives, this is how you justify you being on the wrong side, right?
Wow - the true liberal colors come SCREAMING out of that rant ol Mikie...
Is that article hard for you to deal with - it was a comparison regarding costs... Much like your overblown hysteria related to our deficit when you compare it to our GDP...
So what you're saying is that you don't like the big picture of reality - and would rather just say it is expensive and you children will have to pay for it...
Good logic there Mikie
:thumb:
I would pay you $100 to find where I said the war would not cost more than $50 billion with 'no' lives lost.. And you say you're not a liberal - you know - making assumptions regarding something I didn't say... Classic...
You are Gerald are almost interchangable on subjects like this, I have no doubts you were right behind him chating "Right on!" when he posted it.
Fact: The majority of Republicans are also concerned about deficit spending and the need to reign in spending.
Sad day when Republicans start eating their own by coining the term "Liberal Republican" only to have to come up with "Moderate Republicans" to decribe all the Republicans who oppose the high levels of borrowing proposed by those who look at the government as a limitless funding machine.
Yet again - overblown hysteria Michael... The big picture has our deficit still around 6.5% of GDP - where it was 9.2% during Clinton... But, what you fail to understand is that 9/11 chalked up a couple billion - and then happened to have a war, a recession, and a string of world catastrophes that required tons of our monies...
Kinda like your income - 10 years ago when you only made $30k a year - you obviously can leverage more now that you make $42k a year... You can afford to buy those spinners for your minivan - where 10 years ago you simply viewed those as a luxury item... Again, looking at the entire picture - not just the fact that those spinners cost $386.28...
Do I like the spending - no - but I also put it into perspective and don't think the sky is falling like you do... And then at the end of 2005 the Administration published a report that states the deficit will be dramatically less that what was expected when GWB leaves office - mainly due to the tax cuts...
Again Mikie - your best trait is overblowing any and all issues - like a true liberal... Then you somehow try to convince others that it is a huge issue - yet fail to post anything when it proves to be overblown...
The work is not done in Iraq, and the financial costs will grow beyond the $251 billion we have spent so far. The real cost, of course, is in human lives, manifested in the debate about whether it is worth losing a few thousand American lives in order to liberate 23 million people. But the data are clear; any attempt to discredit this war based on its effect on the U.S. economy is an unnecessary distraction.
Yeah, that's pretty good. Given the fact that 251 billion dollars is not of any consequence to the US economy Republicans should be jumping all over themselves to spend 251 billion to help New Orleans and to expand various social programs because in addition to being just plain cheap none of that is going to get anyone killed. Gee, I wonder what their excuse for not spending that tiny bit of money on those places is going to be?
a) at first claim that the cost will be next to nothing and shared among allies,
b) when cost goes much higher, find comparisons to try and blow smoke to cover the fact that it not only cost alot more than they expected, but make it appear still insignificant when it isn't (as if $251 billion is "nothing")
This is typical across most of the bigger platforms Republicans promtoed; including the "social programs" for drug presecriptions.
Linear Mode
