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.

 

Iraq war costs more per month than Vietnam

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Erm, no, it is not interesting, nor is it a proper or fair comparative, IMHO. It is simply another smear attempt by Reuters, an anti-war media source, to insinuate that Iraq is another Vietnam. Simple as that.

Why the heck is Reuters an ANTIWAR Media Source?

That's a really stupid thing to say. Where did you see that "Anti-War Attitude"? I am really shocked that You of all people would say such a thing, even in this times when we were warned that the Source of the news is not to be discussed in the threads. Do you KNOW how old Retuers really is? America was Barely BORN, when first Reuters reporters already wired news from London to Paris. Maybe that's whats bothering You - that its the news station with the longest tradition and all the CNN's, MSNBC's and Fox News can just hide and eat their heart out?

In October 1851 Paul Julius Reuter, a German-born immigrant, opened an office in the City of London which transmitted stock market quotations between London and Paris via the new Calais-Dover cable. Two years earlier he had used pigeons to fly stock prices between Aachen and Brussels, a service which operated for a year until the gap in the telegraph link was closed.

Reuters, as the agency soon became known, eventually extended its service to the whole British press as well as to other European countries. It also expanded the content to include general and economic news from all around the world. The reputation of its service was enhanced by a succession of reporting scoops. For example, in 1865 Reuters was first in Europe with news of President Lincoln’s assassination in the United States.


Or maybe you are troubled that they reported the President Lincoln Assassination? He probably deserved it anyway, right? I really dont' get your point, but still I am going to do some reasearch instead of you, and find some SOURCES that you do Trust, okey? Is for your delicated standards CNN also anti-war?



CNN; Hagel: Iraq Growing more like Vietnam

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska on Thursday said the United States is "getting more and more bogged down" in Iraq and stood by his comments that the White House is disconnected from reality and losing the war.


Some See Troubling Parallels Between Iraq and Vietnam

WASHINGTON - The mounting death toll and rising cost of war in Iraq are prompting comparisons with another faraway conflict that tested America's resolve.


USA TODAY - Monthly costs of Iraq, Afghan wars approach that of Vietnam

WASHINGTON — The monthly bill for the U.S. military missions in Iraq and Afghanistan now rivals Pentagon spending during the Vietnam War, Defense Department figures show.

The Pentagon is spending nearly $5 billion per month in Iraq and Afghanistan, a pace that would bring yearly costs to almost $60 billion. Those expenses do not include money being spent on rebuilding Iraq's electric grid, water supply and other infrastructure, costs which had no parallel in Vietnam.



Hmmm... They all report the same news. Maybe Reuters did not "Invent" it, but just copied it from his American Sources? I will tell you what I think your problem is: you don't wanna face the facts and the truth about Iraq. You just keep your eyes closed to some events and to some news, saying the are "Anti-War" and that they are "Biased" - but actually they are not. And by doing that, you are simply ignoring some serious problems surrounding War in Iraq: that's its very EXPENSIVE, in Lives and Money, and that it's not really moving anywhere! People are dying on daily basis in numbers we can not even begin to imagine - but with every day more spent in Iraq some lucky businessman gain so much more wealth and power, that we can not even begin to imagine also! For them every US Marine Killed means profit, every Iraqi civilans dead means profit, every Oil field burned means proftit, every days spent more in Iraq means profit. So, why kill your Hen that lays Golden eggs and eat it?




posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 05:53 AM
link   
Going to reply to my post anytime soon? Souljah.....



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
22% of the budget is on education, 43% on health and social services.
We spend a whopping 5% on justice, I was also wrong about the defence, we spend 8% on defence and international.

I was talking about the US Budget.



Exscuse me?
Can we just get back to the subject at hand as in mabye talk about how much the UK spends and not focus on the US for one tiny, little,icckle, microscopic moment??
You realise that the co-alition , atelast the UK as far as I know has broken the offical rules to help these people?
They found a large cache of money for the insurgents to use, who did they give ALL of that money to? Nope not the new government but the local school.

Don't worry - Blair will soon join the Carlyle Group (or he already has?) and UK will not be so ignored in all this Warprofiting. I have alse read the Reports that SAS Soliders get like, alot of money (100.000 $) to "get around the black market" and this money is not Legally given to them - this Money is manily used to Bribe Iraqi Fighters. Suggested read the TimesOnline Article: SAS Men get 100.000 Pounds to Bribe Iraqi Fighters

Woops, it was 100.000 Pounts - I was wrong about the Dollars. Even MORE money then.



There are threats to my country that cant be solved with diplomacy, tell me what we are to do if , as you say we should, not spend that money on defence?

I wasn't talking about YOUR country alone - but about the Manking and the need of these few people in power to arm themselves even more - while on the other side people starve to death, because they need some help from the outside. Is that so hard to understand?



WE need more weapon because WE cant defend ourselves properly.
Are you trying to say we shouldnt defend ourselves?

And who is going to Defend you from your own Corrupted Goverment?



So what do you suggest?
Remove the warlords?

First Questson: How many Weapons Factories are there in Africa? NONE.

Second Question: How many Weapons Smugglers are there in Africa? ALOT.

Third Question: How many Weapons Factories are there in the Rest of the World? ALOT.

Fourth Question: How do these Weapons get from the rest of the World to Africa without any problems, but FOOD DOES NOT?!?!?

Fifth Question: Why not start removing Weapons Smugglers and start to solve the problem at it's roots?



No thats not what we need but hey since we dont do anything major and overnight miricle wise about it we are logical
as bad as any murderer and rapist, YES OR NO???

Overnight? Problems in Africa are not from Yesterday - they are going on for a long, long time. What bothes me is that the Corporations do not have any interests in Africa - expect for the Diamond and Gold Rich South - but the rest can just starve and kill each other to death. Hell, Corporations will even sell them MORE Weapons. Stop the Arms Sales to Africa and half the problem is solved. Then just follow the Money Trail and find all these Bastardz that like to perform Genocide and show them the meaning of the word "STOP!". Give the People Food and Medicine, and help them rebuild their economy and their agriculture. Don't just give them fish, learn them how to fish. But istead of that, they will receive more weapons, fresh, new, with english instructions - and thats the ONLY Money that comes in and out of Africa.



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
I was talking about the US Budget.

And I was talking about the UK budget.



Don't worry - Blair will soon join the Carlyle Group (or he already has?) and UK will not be so ignored in all this Warprofiting. I have alse read the Reports that SAS Soliders get like, alot of money (100.000 $) to "get around the black market" and this money is not Legally given to them - this Money is manily used to Bribe Iraqi Fighters. Suggested read the TimesOnline Article: SAS Men get 100.000 Pounds to Bribe Iraqi Fighters

Ah so I see your now (predictably) moveing off and attacking my leader?
Ah welll atleast I wont do that to your leader.
Its used to buy off leaders since they cant do any other action.
Also since you failed to note the other uses of the money I think I will inform everyone else here. "To buy weapons so resisitance leaders wont be able to buy them". Yes that isnt an effective use of money now is it?




Woops, it was 100.000 Pounts - I was wrong about the Dollars. Even MORE money then.

I didnt know getting weapons out of terrorists hands was such a bad thing, mabye next you'll advocate giving first to terrorists to?
Ps, its perfectly legal.



I wasn't talking about YOUR country alone - but about the Manking and the need of these few people in power to arm themselves even more - while on the other side people starve to death, because they need some help from the outside. Is that so hard to understand?

Can I let you in on a secret?
Mankind doesnt care about everyone else.
One reason why we dont trust people is because when we do help peoiple try and kill our people.
Tell me we should trust someone who kills our people without saying sorry nor helping us in return?




And who is going to Defend you from your own Corrupted Goverment?

The government since it cant be corrupted.
We have 3 seperate levels an act must go through before its legal.



First Questson: How many Weapons Factories are there in Africa? NONE.

First question; Do warlords buy these weapons from factories?No


Second Question: How many Weapons Smugglers are there in Africa? ALOT.

Second question: We are against smugglers , we stop them at all costs.
[quote
Third Question: How many Weapons Factories are there in the Rest of the World? ALOT.

How many more countries are in the rest of the world that need to be protected? ALOT.


Fourth Question: How do these Weapons get from the rest of the World to Africa without any problems, but FOOD DOES NOT?!?!?

Food does get to africa.
Also its easier for weapons to be transported because there are people in the world like warlords who will pay to get these weapons into africa.


Fifth Question: Why not start removing Weapons Smugglers and start to solve the problem at it's roots?

A) This is already being done.
B) Stop trying to make me feel guilty because not everyone gives to africa and stop trying to force your beliefs on me.



Overnight? Problems in Africa are not from Yesterday - they are going on for a long, long time.

Yeah if you hadnt notice we've had quite a few other problems on our hands.


What bothes me is that the Corporations do not have any interests in Africa - expect for the Diamond and Gold Rich South - but the rest can just starve and kill each other to death. Hell, Corporations will even sell them MORE Weapons.

Then dont come to me moaning about corporations, go to someone who gives a damm about them.

[quiote]
Stop the Arms Sales to Africa and half the problem is solved. Then just follow the Money Trail and find all these Bastardz that like to perform Genocide and show them the meaning of the word "STOP!".

A) Most of these arm sales are illegal.
B) Most of these weapons come from other countries.
C) How can we stop them if we cant go there and fight.


Give the People Food and Medicine, and help them rebuild their economy and their agriculture.

A) Already being done.


Don't just give them fish, learn them how to fish. But istead of that, they will receive more weapons, fresh, new, with english instructions - and thats the ONLY Money that comes in and out of Africa.

A) Nice idea, just cant happen.
B) Criminals are inbedded to deep into society to reverse its affects.



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Posted by WestPoint23:
And you have proof that Cheney is continually getting money form Halliburton?


Sorry i'm a bit late with this reaction but still....

you might want to read this:

In a written release, Lautenberg said, "I ask the vice president to stop dodging the issue with legalese, and acknowledge his continued ties with Halliburton to the American people."

Lautenberg said $205,298 was paid to Cheney in deferred salary by Halliburton in 2001, and $162,392 last year. Lautenberg said Halliburton stock options held by Cheney were 100,000 shares at $54.50 per share, 33,333 shares at $28.125 and 300,000 shares at $39.50 per share.


from here:money.cnn.com...

...



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by XyZeR

Posted by WestPoint23:
And you have proof that Cheney is continually getting money form Halliburton?


Sorry i'm a bit late with this reaction but still....

you might want to read this:

In a written release, Lautenberg said, "I ask the vice president to stop dodging the issue with legalese, and acknowledge his continued ties with Halliburton to the American people."

Lautenberg said $205,298 was paid to Cheney in deferred salary by Halliburton in 2001, and $162,392 last year. Lautenberg said Halliburton stock options held by Cheney were 100,000 shares at $54.50 per share, 33,333 shares at $28.125 and 300,000 shares at $39.50 per share.


from here:money.cnn.com...

...


how can you believe a man, in anything he says, when his pockets are being lined by the biggest war profiters. this alone should have EVERYONE questionings the motives of the administration yet very few bring this up.

westpoint, you are a fella with reason. how do you interpret this after he's gone on the record stating he's broken ALL ties with the company?



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Cheney has insisted in the past that the deferred compensation was set up long before he became a candidate for the vice presidency. The money is insured in case the company goes under and Lautenberg acknowledged that the compensation received so far has been donated to charity.

Lautenberg also acknowledged that the president and the vice president are both exempt from the enforcement of ethics laws.

"I believe the vice president is an honorable man," Lautenberg said at a news conference, "I just think he made a mistake."


this Democrat calls Cheney an honorable man who made a mistake??
thats hilarious. he needs to make up his mind on his judgement of the vice president.



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Even if it does cost more a month than Vietnam surely its a price worth paying so long as it saves the lives of servicemen and Iraqis.


cjf

posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 10:23 AM
link   
The report “The Iraq Quagmire” is generally misleading and based upon figures from the entire US 'War on Terrorism'.

Eg: Reuters’s caveat warns of possible bias (from the posted article):



The report, entitled "The Iraq Quagmire" from the Institute for Policy Studies and Foreign Policy in Focus,both liberal, anti-war organizations...(emphasis added)


Above average scrutiny probably should apply, however some of the information is interesting (the full source has some interesting thoughts even if one agrees or disagrees; however, most are 'bent-to-fit')

The Iraq Quagmire (full text pdf.)

To a few points made in this post:

The cost inflation adjusted numbers are low as used in the afore mentioned report (see University of Oregon 2005 Tables pdf.), un-weighted according relative expenditure dates concerning the Vietnam costs comparison/example (usually between the era cost of US$ 140 to 180 Billion) This is important as inflation was rampant in the US post 1973 and the IDivisor used is askew and near .28 to .30). And the article uses a slightly revised ‘Scenario Two” from the CBO 2004 report which is the highest cost scenario.



.



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Here is the BBC Article:

Iraq war "costlie" then the Vietnam War



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Although there are fewer troops in Iraq than Vietnam, they are paid more and weapons are more expensive, the report says.



thanks Souljah, i knew it would support my case as to why the war is more expensive. in anicase weapons will become more expensive and troops get more pay.

also.....


"The more valued criticism is whether the Bush administration is winning the war and prosecuting it in a successful way," he said.

"So what price victory? I would say that $5bn a month is certainly something I would be willing to pay."

Mr Donnelly said the relative cost of operations in Iraq, at 2% of America's annual GDP, was less than either the Vietnam conflict at 12% or World War II at 40%.

"Although the costs of war have grown... the American economy is exponentially larger than it was in the Vietnam War years," Mr Donnelly said.

"When it [the Iraq war] is compared to the overall size of the American economy, it's really a drop in the bucket, certainly by historical standards."





[edit on 1-9-2005 by deltaboy]

[edit on 1-9-2005 by deltaboy]


cjf

posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Here is the BBC Article:

Iraq war "costlie" then the Vietnam War


No matter what agency reports the ‘findings of the report’ (the same mentioned in the initial post) it is the based upon the same supposed information.

But the BBC article adds a fantastic source point:



"When it [the Iraq war] is compared to the overall size of the American economy, it's really a drop in the bucket, certainly by historical standards."


However; I am sure there will be many more organizations attempting to announce precisely how the ‘sky is falling’ in larger chunks than the last time.


.



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 09:36 PM
link   

We who is we ?the americans ?? dont make laugh!!Its them rich boys in the white house and there other rich friends!!YOu think you will benefit!!!! only 0,5 % of the americans benifit.Wake up and face it dude, you dont mean anything.


Ok, if you say so, keep believing its the evil rich folks and them folks in the white house.



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rikimaru

Originally posted by Souljah

$191,260,395,448

Instead, we could have fully funded global anti-hunger efforts for 7 years.

Instead, we could have fully funded world-wide AIDS programs for 19 years.

Instead, we could have ensured that every child in the world was given basic immunizations for 63 years.

But - NOOoooo! Boys wanna play Cowboys and Indians.

When are WE - as Humanity - Gonna Learn?

When its TOO LATE?


Who the hell is WE? I believe these are american tax dollars. You want to fund anti-hunger and aids programs, YOU donate the money.


Most damn selfish thing i've ever heared. You know why, because most people don't! Argh, anyone that would rather their tax dollars go towards the slaughtering of thousand of innocent people rather than eradicating world hunger. YOU are what makes me ashamed to call myself Human!



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 03:04 PM
link   


Iraq war costs more per month than Vietnam


There's a real rocket scientist of a statement. The Vietnam war was fought in the 60's and 70's. The Iraq war being 30-40+ years later costing more money is a surprise to you? or to anyone? My parents bought a house in 1962 that cost $13,000. The same house today would cost $300,000. Wow, that is so surprising. How can that be??



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by XanaX

There's a real rocket scientist of a statement. The Vietnam war was fought in the 60's and 70's. The Iraq war being 30-40+ years later costing more money is a surprise to you? or to anyone? My parents bought a house in 1962 that cost $13,000. The same house today would cost $300,000. Wow, that is so surprising. How can that be??


Methinks you might want to re-read the pertinent article before you start making assumptions....


The report, entitled "The Iraq Quagmire" from the Institute for Policy Studies and Foreign Policy in Focus, both liberal, anti-war organizations, put the cost of current operations in Iraq at $5.6 billion per month. This breaks down to almost $186 million a day.

"By comparison, the average cost of U.S. operations in Vietnam over the eight-year war was $5.1 billion per month, adjusting for inflation," it said.


(emphasis mine)

In other words...the numbers have been adjusted appropriately...

How many rocket scientists do we have on this thread, hmmm?




new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join