It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The War in Iraq Cost the United States

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   
I must say the United States must be very rich to be able to throw so much money away, not to mention the martial and human lives.

The War in Iraq Cost the United States
Acording to the National Priorities Project it is near $150 Billion

Did you know that the Iraq war cost $537 per person in America or 1,419 per household?


So far America is in the hole for $149,410,432,000 and is growing by the second as you read this, click here to see the counter in action also State by State totals


Currently, the Cost of War calculator is set to reach $152 billion at the end of January 2005. This amount is based on the National Priorities Project analysis of the three requests made by the Bush Administration for funding for the Iraq War, and what Congress actually allocated. The most recent request passed by Congress was for an additional $25 billion, which was intended to pay for the costs through the end of the calendar year (approximately).

Cost to Taxpayers of New $25 Billion War Request

Local Costs of Iraq War

NPP's interactive income tax chart enter the amount of federal income tax you paid during 2003 and see how the government spent your money



The following pie indicates the top 10 countries' share in world military spending, which in 2003 totaled almost $880 billion. The figures, compiled by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute are compared in constant (2000) prices and market exchange rates. The top ten spenders made up 76% of all military spending in the world, while the U.S. alone made up almost half. The top 15 spenders (including Russia, India, Israel, Turkey and Brazil) made up 82% of all military spending.




Source: www.costofwar.com...

Stockholm International Peace Research Institute

ATS
Governement Spending and Debt Statistics

100,000,000,000 More Dollars Please!







[edit on 11/1/2005 by Sauron]




posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Well some would say we are "rich" This just shows Americas determination for fighting for what we want.. instead of bein a PUUUUUUSSSSSSYYYYYYYYYYY (*cough* canada *cough*..Excuse Me)

Oh and we arent "throwing" the money away. You kno how much money the USA gives Canada, without us purchasing your prescription drugs you are screwed. Oh ill bet if we spent money waring with Canada youd be kissing our A$$'s. To say that the money is being "thrown away" is absolutly rediculious. Im sure the USA supports Canada in many other ways... O well...I am assuming that You are from Canada based on your signature and third person point of view... if you are not.. I am sorry.. if you are... im soo sorry also...that you have to live surrounded by... nvm



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Yes your are right sauron the present administration underestimated the cost of the war in Iraq, under the believe that after taking control of the oil fields the Reconstruction would be self sufficient and would be paid by the oil.

Well now as we can see the war has become a burden with not end to the American citizens.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by raas32
Well some would say we are "rich" This just shows Americas determination for fighting for what we want.. instead of bein a PUUUUUUSSSSSSYYYYYYYYYYY (*cough* canada *cough*..Excuse Me)

Oh and we arent "throwing" the money away. You kno how much money the USA gives Canada, without us purchasing your prescription drugs you are screwed. Oh ill bet if we spent money waring with Canada youd be kissing our A$$'s. To say that the money is being "thrown away" is absolutly rediculious. Im sure the USA supports Canada in many other ways... O well...I am assuming that You are from Canada based on your signature and third person point of view... if you are not.. I am sorry.. if you are... im soo sorry also...that you have to live surrounded by... nvm



First off, this thread is not about Canada got it. It is about the price of war in Iraq, So no more cheap shots at Canadians. Secondly, the U.S. does not “give Canada anything” third Canada is considering curtailing pharmaceutical sales to the U.S.
In addition, I am a five-Buck Kanuck who has lived here for forty plus years. I unlike you decided where I wanted to live. In addition, as far as Canadians go they are one of the finest peoples of the world, and can still travel without fear unlike Americans who pretend to be Canadian when abroad. but that’s another thread, so if you have nothing to add to this threads topic stay out of it. Take your childish slander elsewhere.
Sauron






posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Yes your are right sauron the present administration underestimated the cost of the war in Iraq, under the believe that after taking control of the oil fields the Reconstruction would be self sufficient and would be paid by the oil.

Well now as we can see the war has become a burden with not end to the American citizens.


I agree marg what a lot of people don't seem to relize is that Iraq does not have to win the war, they just don't have to loose and thier doing that very well and are getting better at it.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron



First off, this thread is not about Canada got it. It is about the price of war in Iraq, So no more cheap shots at Canadians. Secondly, the U.S. does not “give Canada anything” third Canada is considering curtailing pharmaceutical sales to the U.S.
In addition, I am a five-Buck Kanuck who has lived here for forty plus years. I unlike you decided where I wanted to live. In addition, as far as Canadians go they are one of the finest peoples of the world, and can still travel without fear unlike Americans who pretend to be Canadian when abroad. but that’s another thread, so if you have nothing to add to this threads topic stay out of it. Take your childish slander elsewhere.
Sauron





Yes this thread is about the Price of war not " Americans who pretend to be Canadian when abroad" Try to stay on topic.

You get mad at someone for taking a cheap shot at Canadians and take one at Americans in the same post


I travel outside the US and I dont pretend to be Canadian infact I dont know anyone that pretended to ever be from Canada. Really anyone that has more then two brain cells is not going to confuse a Canadain and a American the second they open their mouth.

[edit on 11-1-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Why Americans pretend to be Canadian
Travellers adopt new identity to escape scorn abroad
FOR some Americans, to be mistaken for a Canadian is the ultimate humiliation, yet hundreds of US citizens travelling abroad have willingly acquired a disguise of a T-shirt with a Canadian flag.
Americans Sometimes Prefer to be Canadian

so back to the original thread please and thank you.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   
You guys are overlooking the big picture here,

Sure the Bush Administration has blown a hole in the nations wallet, ringing up a cool $150 Billion bill to the common citizen.

*waiving international sign for 'check please!'*

Why should they care? Our Administration answers to War Profiteers. We've spent $1.5B in order to make $BiLLiONS$

All hail Carlyle..! "ooooi.."



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX


I travel outside the US and I dont pretend to be Canadian infact I dont know anyone that pretended to ever be from Canada. Really anyone that has more then two brain cells is not going to confuse a Canadain and a American the second they open their mouth.

[edit on 11-1-2005 by ShadowXIX]


Your right about that... Canadians open there mouth and sense comes out



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by P Amaru

Your right about that... Canadians open there mouth and sense comes out


Oh really funny
Oh your right Canadians are so much smarter then Americans



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 05:31 PM
link   
The real cost of the Iraq war should include the stimulus package that he was able to push forth because he argued that the economy needed a boost in wartime. The cost for the stimulus package is $ 70 billion per year. The real cost of the war is approaching 550 billion dollars for the years 2003-2005 when the appropriation of 100 billion dollars for 2005 operations in Iraq passes.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 05:42 PM
link   

I think that that graph shows somethign more intersting that that the US is such a big spender on the military. That Saudi Arabia is spending such a large chunk, compared to 'the rest of the world'. If you look at the chart to, the listed nations, excluding the US, also together spend more than the rest of the world. And notice who's policies are heard and which countries have influence on that 'rest of the world'. Its those very countries that are named on that chart.

The US spends big on the military, and as a result, it is capable of doing what it wants. The rest of the world was vehemently opposed to the Iraq War and loathes the current american administration. It made no difference.

*Fixed Image

[edit on 11-1-2005 by TrickmastertricK]



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Is the US really "capable of doing what it wants"? It's having difficulty supressing Iraq and is so bogged down it couldn't contemplate fighting any other well armed country right now (like Iran). In fact what the pie chart shows is that spending all that money on technology is a waste because the reality is it doesn't even allow you to impose your power on a country like Iraq which had been run into the ground militarily for 10 years before you took it on in 91 and then run into the ground for another 10 years before you took it on this time round. What you need is 1 million conscripts in Iraq with basic training and a rifle, not 1 billion dollar stealth bombers, but US society won't countenance conscription because it doesn't have the convictions to support its own empire. This is why US power is doomed. Study the history of the Roman empire for cross-reference



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 06:18 PM
link   
martian_tourist, you are a person who truely knows what the reality is. I couldnt have said it better myself....



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by martian_tourist
In fact what the pie chart shows is that spending all that money on technology is a waste because the reality is it doesn't even allow you to impose your power on a country like Iraq which had been run into the ground militarily for 10 years before you took it on in 91 and then run into the ground for another 10 years before you took it on this time round.


Run into the groung Militarily before 91


Iraq was the fourth largest Military in the world at the time of the first Gulf War, And what did get them? The loser end of the most lopsided war in human history.

If anything the Gulfwar showcased how important military tech is in war.Example T-72 vs M1a1



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 07:16 AM
link   
By 91 Iraq had only just finished fighting a costly war of attrition with Iran that had started in the early 80s. In fact the reason Saddam attacked Kuwait was because he was in dire econmic straits (despite the oil wealth) as a result of war debts which he felt Kuwait should pay for him as he had fought the war to "protect them from Islamic fundamentalism". They lost about 1 million men I think; there was one tank battle that was bigger than the battle of Kursk betwen Russia and Germany in 1943. Though I take your point - you need a military that may have to fight a wide varitety of enemies, but the US army has too much expensive technology and logistics and too few grunts who fire guns. All recent wars have needed the latter. Who is the technology for? Only Russia, China and the EU could remotely compete and are the likely adversaries?



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Just wanted bring up the hole "hockey" thing....

Maybe that's the "bigger" plan of the US.....(i will explain...)

They started back about a year ago.....

STOP the Hockey and the Canadians fans will go NUTS if "stoped" long enough....they will slowly turn to terrorist, then US can take over Canada to stop the "foaming at the mouth Hockey fans".

Just to bring some humor to this "thread", seem'd to me to much "name" calling back and forth....

AND.......even thow' we don't always agree with you USA, we still love you as a big brother...always and forever.

Your Canadian friend forever,
Sven

Oh ya....and if you American's are gon'a be Canadian when y'r abroad....just make sure you wear a Toronto Maple Leafs jersey NOT a Montreal Canadian's one...hee...hee



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Well America could save billions by bring there troops home from I believe 1000 or so bases world wide. Then using the troops to monitor and guard their boarders against illegal aliens / terrorists and drugs entering their country.
In addition, by having that amount of troops and hardware on their own soil, they would be no need for NATO troops that are there now. That would surly make any terrorist or rouge nation seriously have second thoughts of attack, after all the U.S. can deploy anywhere it wants to in the world from bases in the U.S. can they not. I know it is a very simple outlook on a complex issue, but I think there are some merits to my idea.


by svenglezz
Oh ya....and if you American's are gon'a be Canadian when y'r abroad....just make sure you wear a Toronto Maple Leafs jersey NOT a Montreal Canadian's one...hee...hee


I would go with the team Canada jersey





[edit on 12/1/2005 by Sauron]



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by martian_tourist
. Though I take your point - you need a military that may have to fight a wide varitety of enemies, but the US army has too much expensive technology and logistics and too few grunts who fire guns. All recent wars have needed the latter. Who is the technology for? Only Russia, China and the EU could remotely compete and are the likely adversaries?


War is both a science and a art and you should not neglect either side. I dont see the lack of grunts as a real problem since if there was ever a real need for troops there is always the draft. And if it was a just war in the eyes of the people like (WW2) you wouldnt even need a draft many would join up. You could get 20 million if needed more then enough for just about anything.

Technology is also a force multiplier with things like UAVs and Robots comming into their own there wont really be a need for massive troops for wars in the future. Even something like the B-2 can do the what would take hundreds of planes in WW2.




top topics



 
0

log in

join