Costs in Iraq now top $300 billion

[Dinner]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4471345.stm

That's $169 billion in spending over the last 8 month and everyone says another bill will be coming in 3-5 months. We could see a total of $200 billion in one 12 month period for Iraq/Afghanistan. The Bush administration continues to not say how much of that $300 billion goes to Iraq and how much to Afghanistan but with 3,000 US troops in Afghanistan and 135,000 in Iraq it’s a sure then that virtually all of it goes to Iraq while reconstruction in Afghanistan continues to be ignored.

I had told DanS that I believed Bush was utterly financially reckless and DanS claimed that inflation adjusted Bush's budget deficit for this year would be dramatically lower then 2004. I gave him one better and said that the budget deficit just had to be, inflation adjusted, bigger then in 2005 then 2004. Well, even with those freebies I gave Dan things aren't looking good for the deficit numbers nor for America's finances. As predicted Congressional Republicans rejected most of Bush's cuts then Bush and Congress larded on new spending and tax cuts. They not only made most of Bush's tax cuts permanent but they also introduced massive new tax cuts for the wealthy (the estate tax was eliminated) and they upped spending to boot.

The reckless lack of common financial sense by Republicans has caused the dollar to slide and now inflation is rearing its ugly head. It seems like I will have to start thinking about what DanS's avatar will be; anyone have any suggestions?

Any way the other contention DanS had was that Iraq was only costing around %0-60 billion per year. I'd like to point out that my estimate of $100 billion was not widely over estimating the costs like he said but instead underestimated costs by 60% so far and there are 4 months for that figure to go higher. I wish I was wrong but it's hard not to be right when you bet that Bush will be a terrible President.

[Ted Striker]

Re: Costs in Iraq now top $300 billion

Originally posted by Oerdin
I wish I was wrong but it's hard not to be right when you bet that Bush will be a terrible President.

[Bosh]

hmmmm

[Lawrence of Arabia]

'oil revenues will cover nearly all costs, its inconcievable that the rebuilding will cost more then $5 million. we are looking at a country who can literally finance its own reconstruction'

[Drake Tungsten]

How much are you guys willing to pay to address the root cause of Islamic terrorism by reforming the Middle East? Just curious...

[Lawrence of Arabia]

****ing liars the whole lot of them in our govt . . . and dumb ****ing sheep who believe everything thats said to them like its the truth of God coming down from mt. sinai. how does it feel now to be led by the nose like a ox? do you guys feel stupid? enjoy it, maybe one day you'll think before voting republican.

[Drake Tungsten]

Was that addressed to me? If so, you should know that I didn't vote for Bush, twice...

[Lawrence of Arabia]

not at all drake, its aimed at those who support bushs little adventure in Iraq. lets look at all the ways they were wrong.

1) cost. no it didnt cost $5 million, and no oil sales did not pay for iraqs reconstruction. whoever believed that is a ****ing idiot, and should feel used. and, oh yea, get your heads outta your asses and do some thinking for yourself instead of listening and swalling whole anything from fox news, cnn, ny times, or the white house press secretary.

2) national security risk to the US. nope, we didnt find any mobile weapon labs, and nope we didnt find any weapons grade plutonium from, of all places, nigeria, or did we find any actual weapons of that sort anywhere. yet again, whoever believed that is yet again, a ****ing idiot, and should feel used. and i dont care what the CIA/NSA/FBI/mossad/MI6/ your uncle on your moms side who has a source in army intelligence or bush said. use your brain a little wouldnt you? dont you find it a little suspicious that all of sudden theres a HUUGE threat from iraq and WMD, while those two words were not even in Bushs vocabulary prior to the world trade center attack?

3) al qaeda in iraq. nope, the only link between al qaeda and iraq before we came in and destroyed the infrastructure was that both words contain the letters q and a. all the dumb **** americans who have no idea about the world, our history in the region, the koran, and how the middle east comes together, and who believed this little lie should also feel as used as the bottom of my shoe sole.

did i miss anything? you guys know who you are.

[Drake Tungsten]

I support Bush's little adventure in Iraq. I thought it had the potential to change the region for the good. It still does.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

fine, in that case it is for you too. it might do good, but for all the wrong reasons, and its at the wrong time. you know it, i know it, even bush knows it, but hes into personal vendettas. the iraq invasion has made us less safe, and has allowed al qaeda to operate in relative calm in their hotbeds outside of Afghanitan, including places like SOMALIA, and YEMEN, places were we shoulda gone instead of IRAQ. but iraqs got oil, those othe r places dont, so iraq it was.

bush and his cronies manipulated the **** outta your guys, and you got used, boy did you get used. probably the biggest hoodwink job in US history. but he still has a fanatical following, and he will use you again, and again, and again, because he knows you dont question him, no matter how many times he burns you guys.

[Drake Tungsten]

fine, in that case it is for you too. it might do good, but for all the wrong reasons, and its at the wrong time.

God, I never get sick of that reasoning. America is doing good, but since I don't approve of the reasoning or the timing, it's really bad!

[Lawrence of Arabia]

of course not, it makes us more open to attack, but you guys just dont get it. you dont see any shades of gray in the middle east, because none of you have a clue or bother to look at it from another perspective.

and then theres the ridiculous double speak. first you guys say you want us to be safer, but then you go off on adventures which makes us less safe, by ignoring the problem. thats like if you have the the flu and cancer, and your doctor gives you treatment for the flu and tells you 'we'll worry about the cancer later' hahahah how ridiculous, would you feel safer? i dare you to say yes. so enjoy our unsafe borders, our 'war on terror' which isnt targeting terror anymore, just remember how you are being used, misled, all because of your ignorance. and the sad part is that all the while, al qaeda can roam free in their real strongholds.

[Drake Tungsten]

I don't buy the reasoning that Iraq made us less safe. The potential was there, certainly, but it seems to have worked out for the best. Iraq has become a magnet for Al Qaeda and like minded organizations and those groups won't be doing much damage to America while they're devoting most of their energy and resources to an unwinnable fight in Iraq.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

well, lets look at that reasoning. lets start with some assumptions

1) we have limited resources
2) iraq takes up a lot of our resources
3) iraq takes up 80% of our armed forces

its a tradeoff. the more you put there, the less you can put in afghanista, in yemen, in somalia, where the terrorists really are. we cannot be in many places at once, and we went to the WRONG place. therefore, it has made us less safe. if you agree with the assumptions, then the only logical conclusion is that the iraq war has made us less safe. now, you can also stick your heads in the sand and just swallow what the lord god bush says, but then you guys would be getting used yet again.

has it worked out better then i thought? a thousand times better. has it put the middle east on a path towards democracy? no question. BUT THAT IS NOT THE WAR ON TERROR. the war on terror is the extermination of al qaeda. why is it that i get it, but no one else seems to. why are you people so easily clouded by smoke and mirrors?

and oh yea, how many top ranking al qaeda lieutenants have you caught in iraq? thats right, zero. so it would seem that iraq isnt drawing significant resources of al qaeda, or osama woulda sent in a top dawg to make sure **** doesnt hit the fan. but, wait, thats using reason, logic, and my brain. we cant be having that. zarquawai gets just enough support to be a nusiance. al qaeda is not fighting the battle in iraq. why should it? its goal is to destroy america at home, not in iraq. there are no america civilians there, no symbols of american power. so they send minimal support to iraq, and gather their forces in the dark alleys and pits of places that bush has overlooked.

[Drake Tungsten]

al qaeda is not fighting the battle in iraq. why should it? its goal is to destroy america at home, not in iraq.

That's not true, but I don't have time to explain right now. You might want to look into the conflicting visions of Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri as regards Al Qaeda goals and policy. I might chime in later, if I don't get too drunk at this enkai...