Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

U.S. Has Spent $642 Billion on Afghan War, Including almost $200 Billion for This Year and Next

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on May, 22 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   

While Washington’s rhetoric has focused recently on the coming end to the war in Afghanistan, its spending on the conflict is not at all waning.

Between this year and next, the federal government plans to spend nearly $200 billion on the war. If it does so, the U.S. will have spent about $642 billion since 2001 on fighting the Taliban, al-Qaeda and allied groups, local militias and warlords in Afghanistan.

One think tank, the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS), characterized the spending commitment for 2012 and 2013 as “incredible” given the lack of controls, plans, auditing and effectiveness employed by the Obama administration to win the war.



Source

Ugh....What a waste of money and lives! Just think what 642 billion dollars could be spent on other than wars! We could feed and clothe people, provide free health care, etc etc etc etc!

Seems to me that with all the talk of ending and slowing down these wars is all BS! I mean if it does spend the 200 billion between this year and next, thats approx 30 percent of the money used to fight these 'wars' will be spent within this year and next! WHY!

It makes me sick to think of the money and resources used just to kill. This is the type of reason why Ron Paul needs to be elected! Bring the troops home, stop wasting money on wars!

Your thoughts?!




posted on May, 22 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   
I'm less concerned with the $80-billion/year spent on the war as I am with the American lives lost. It makes me sick to see Bush put us into a war, and NOT let the soldiers fight. Then, we get Obama who makes the ROE even more strict. Thousands of good people dead. Billions of dollars spent. Yet, even with all the money spent on war, the cost is still less than the bank bailouts. Sad state of the country right now.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   
well, of course...it's not like that money needs to go to the middle class, housing, or to help the poor. that money needs to go to the large corporations that make massive profits to make sure the 1%'ers get their dividend checks. good thing the republicans in the house authorized that spending, because that shows how frugal they are, right?
now if we just get a republican in the white house and a majority of them in the senate, they can funnel all that wasteful welfare spending into the useful spending on the military. we need to get all those brown people and the poor whites into military garb so we can send them out to protect our corporations around the world. ZEIK HEIL!!...ZEIK HEIL!!...ZEIK HEIL!!



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   
^ What do you mean give it to the poor?...

That would cause national back-lash. You know it would.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3
I'm less concerned with the $80-billion/year spent on the war as I am with the American lives lost. It makes me sick to see Bush put us into a war, and NOT let the soldiers fight. Then, we get Obama who makes the ROE even more strict. Thousands of good people dead. Billions of dollars spent. Yet, even with all the money spent on war, the cost is still less than the bank bailouts. Sad state of the country right now.


hey, people love war here in america, we even have a seperate military TV channel devoted to it 24/7...we are an empire, and we don't care how many poor people are homeless, starving, or dieing at home, as loong as we are busting military nut on some foreign country....don't think so?....then why haven't the people of america voted these warmongers out of office?....because america loves WAR!!



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
hey, people love war here in america, we even have a seperate military TV channel devoted to it 24/7...we are an empire, and we don't care how many poor people are homeless, starving, or dieing at home, as loong as we are busting military nut on some foreign country....don't think so?....then why haven't the people of america voted these warmongers out of office?....because america loves WAR!!

I don't care if people are too lazy, too hooked on drugs or alcohol, or just too stupid to find a job. That's their problem, and it shouldn't be my job to support them. As for your point about America's love for war, just go back to Operation Desert Storm and how the live war coverage on CNN killed the ratings for the Superbowl that year. You're right, Americans do love war. So, how do we vote them out when their replacements will be bought and paid for before we get a chance to vote? How do we "fix" it?



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
well, of course...it's not like that money needs to go to the middle class, housing, or to help the poor. that money needs to go to the large corporations that make massive profits to make sure the 1%'ers get their dividend checks. good thing the republicans in the house authorized that spending, because that shows how frugal they are, right?
now if we just get a republican in the white house and a majority of them in the senate, they can funnel all that wasteful welfare spending into the useful spending on the military. we need to get all those brown people and the poor whites into military garb so we can send them out to protect our corporations around the world. ZEIK HEIL!!...ZEIK HEIL!!...ZEIK HEIL!!

Republicans and Democrats are one in the same. Dems had the House, Senate, and White House...and things got worse for the poor and middle class. Sieg Heil, yes...Heil Obama! Right? Yes we can!



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
And despite the sad waste of lives, and money that could have been better spent at home, Afghanistan will doubtless return to tribal feuding, as it has throughout it,s history.
We Brits could,nt sort them out, neither could the Russians, and though the American and coalition forces have arguably fared better, at huge financial cost, and lives lost, and an ultimate outcome that history may record as prolonging the agony unnecessarily, as the outcome will more than likely be the same as the earlier campaigns to subdue the Afghans.
I,m sure it will have helped to justify America,s huge military spending, and kept thousands in work in the arms industries....



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
In 2001, there were 45,000 Taliban; in 2010 there were 36,000 Taliban so it took 9 years to get rid of 11,000 Taliban at a cost of 640 Billion.

This amounts to $58 Million to kill one taliban...My goodness, send out a bunch of American rednecks and tell them hunting season is open and they don't like Jesus and the job would be done much faster and cheaper

If we look at this extrapolation, since 36,000 Taliban are left we are looking at 20-30 more years to completely rid the area of Taliban...

Some sources are mentioning 3.7 Trillion for the Iraq and Afghan war combined:

www.reuters.com...

The Vietnam war was $686 Billion, this war on Iraq/Afghan is 3.7 Trillion...wow..

articles.latimes.com...


Cost of Iraq war will surpass Vietnam by year's end If Congress approves a request for another $87 billion, the Iraq war will have cost about $694 billion. The Vietnam war cost $686 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars; World War II cost $4 trillion. April 11, 2009|Julian E. Barnes


costofwar.com...
edit on 013131p://5America/ChicagoTue, 22 May 2012 13:17:15 -0500 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)





new topics




 
2

log in

join