$81 billion more for Iraq.

[Pekka]

I hardly see the passion for democracy etc in the eyes of Iraqi people to be so strong they would be willing to continue without any advancements. Since the rebels and terrorists are not going to stop, the only way to make them stop or seem as not so important is to make the people 'take the power'. But let's not forget they are not reading freedom+liberty=happiness books in there every night. They need concrete. Something that makes it even remotely possible. That means rebuilding of the infrastructure, establishing some vital places etcetcetc. Without that, there is no start. That is the start, the real concrete start people can see. It still doesn't guarantee anything, but not doing it guarantees a failure. It's really a tough situation now, there are many things that needs to be succesful, and so many things that can go wrong and **** it up. THis is one of those things that needs to go right, and maybe there still is a chance, maybe. Without it, no chance in hell.

Of course it's a crap loads of money. I will buy two big coca cola bottles tomorrow to chip in! hooray for me.

[Whaleboy]

would you as a person help support the Iraqi people in some form like a charity of some sort?

Indeed, charity is fine. Also, if previously uninvolved nations seek to pay, then good on them. I look at it as a man who as incurred some debt. It is rude and inconsiderate of him to ask others to help pay his debt, if others choose to help out of charity (either organisational charities or governmental handouts) then that's good for them, but they are under no obligation or moral imperative to do so.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DanS
The war spending started well before the war began. So the denominator is 3 years (October '02 - September '05).

No dice. War spending as added only counts once shooting started. If you want to include the build up then I'll have to add more money to the total in order to cover that period. You are right the current total does include Afghanistan but that's because Bush continues to insist that Iraq is somehow related to fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban thus they refuse to account for it seporately.

In any event Iraq is 90%+ of the total so the amount is well above your $50 billion per year total. By your own admission they're spending $81 billion this year and that is just the first billion. Bush loves to stretch things out into three or four bills so it doesn't look as big as it really is.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
But it still comes down to a great deal of expenditure directly related to the invasion of Iraq, or at least the latter is eating most of the money no?

Iraq sucks up the vast majority of the funds since it is much, much larger of a war then Afghanistan. I'd love to have Iraq only figures but Bush has repeatedly refused to account just for Iraq and he continues to pretend that Iraq had something to do with Al Qaeda. I believe he's just afraid to show how much more he's spent going after Saddam compared to how little we've spent going after Al Qaeda.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DanS
I'm not going to post in this thread further because this has been explained to you once before. Understanding the math is not beyond your capabilities, as far as I know.

You can't do it can you? You just can't admite that the war costs a hell of a lot more then $50 billion per year.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
Well it is very expensive and we are just going to have to flip the bill one way or the other. Of course the United States is flipping most of the bill.. I would like to request that nations that didn't participate in the war or that were even against it help.. out of the kindness of their hearts and only think about the Iraqi people. Even if you are against the Iraq war, would you as a person help support the Iraqi people in some form like a charity of some sort?

Personally, no. The way I see it, the money will be paid somehow or other, either by the US/UK alone, or by those plus other nations. The US and UK got into this mess, and if I were in another nation, I'd be strongly against my government pledging any money, as it's a simple case of either they spend money, or the US/UK spends money, and when it's their fault, I think they should pay.

As Whaleboy said, I see it like a loan. The US acted against the EU in going to war, and so should foot the bill for their actions. While I'd love to see the EU pitching in, morally I feel they're completely justified in not, and if I lived inthe non-UK EU, I'd be strongly against it.

[Provost Harrison]

We should never have got involved in the whole sordid business either...despite lack of popular support for the war, Blair went ahead and did it anyway.

[Dinner]

Some good things have come out of it but the down side to not trying harder to win broad based support is the bill is coming due and there aren't to many people quing up to share the tab.

I just wish Dan could admit it costs more then $50 billion per year.

[Whaleboy]

It would be nice when democracy makes big, expensive mistakes that some are opposed to, that those "some" should have the option of not paying their taxes that would have been wasted on that mistake.

Needless to say, that also falls foul of the democracy fallacy. This system so completely sucks .

[Whaleboy]

I just wish Dan could admit it costs more then $50 billion per year.

Wouldn't that be enough to have a free prescription service for all US Citizens?

[DinoDoc]

No. Medicaid costs more than that.

[Drogue]

The US budget is around $2.4 trillion, and while it would make a sizeable difference, adding $50 billion to the $580 bn department of health budget wouldn't have the massive effect of free prescriptions, or anything resembling the NHS.

[Whaleboy]

Fair enough. However, how much does the US spend on its military, and how much would be required for free prescriptions?

[Drogue]

The US spends ~$480 bn on defense, most of which I presume is spent on the military. Free prescriptions is something I'm not sure is needed, since seeing the doctor costs in the first place. Free healthcare probably wouldn't cost much more that the US currently pays, as in the UK we spend £81 bn on the NHS, which is around £1200 per capita. The US has just under 300 million inhabitants, and so presuming costs of around $2200 per capita, a UK style NHS would cost the US around $660 bn per year. So an extra $80 bn per year would be enough to have free healthcare for all in the US.

However this leaves out the big problem of pay. Doctor's and nurse's pay in the US is vastly higher than it is in the UK, partly due to the higher costs of the education required to do the job. Thus costs would likely be quite significantly higher.