Something nice the US has done in Iraq.

[Dinner]

javascript:cnnVideo('play','/video/us/2007/01/17/johns.condolence.pay.cnn','2007/01/31');

Since the start of the war the US government has been paying $2500 to the family of each Iraqi who was killed due to no fault at all of the Americans. Even if the US was no where near the location were the death occured but a terrorist bomb or sectarian violence killed an Iraqi the US government paid the dead person's family $2500 as condolence pay. Just a way to tell the family the US was sorry.

I wish they did that for US citizens.

[Zkribbler]

If I received $2,500 for everytime a family member of mine was killed in a terrorist attack, I'd have a lot fewer family members.

[dudemanjack]

I wonder if there's any correlation between when this policy started and a rise in terrorist attacks.

[Spiffor]

Re: Something nice the US has done in Iraq.

Originally posted by Oerdin
the US government paid the dead person's family $2500 as condolence pay. Just a way to tell the family the US was sorry.

At least there's one thing you got right in Iraq.

[realpolitic]

[Chemical Ollie]

How much has the war costed so far? My guess is about 500 billion $.

Iraq had a population of about 28 million in 2003, which has decreased due to deaths and (mostly) emigration. So let's say the current poulation is 25 million to make the numbers nice and round.

This means US has spent 20 000 $ per "liberated" Iraqi. The average family might be 5 persons, since they bare more children than westeners, so thats 100 000 $ spent per family.

I would say 2500 $ for a killed family member is pretty low in comparison.

The above figures are based on educated guesses, someone who has the time and willingness to dig up news articles and statistics will probably correct me, but I'm pretty sure the conclusion would be the same.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
How much has the war costed so far? My guess is about 500 billion $.

Iraq had a population of about 28 million in 2003, which has decreased due to deaths and (mostly) emigration. So let's say the current poulation is 25 million to make the numbers nice and round.

This means US has spent 20 000 $ per "liberated" Iraqi. The average family might be 5 persons, since they bare more children than westeners, so thats 100 000 $ spent per family.

I would say 2500 $ for a killed family member is pretty low in comparison.

The above figures are based on educated guesses, someone who has the time and willingness to dig up news articles and statistics will probably correct me, but I'm pretty sure the conclusion would be the same.

You got a lot of stuff up that ass man. Well, actually you have a bit less than you did before that post but still...

[ColdPhoenix]

According to the CIA World Factbook there are 4.18 children born/woman so we could estimate a family size at 6. The population is over 26.5 million. Almost $400 billion has been allocated by congress for the war. That would mean around $90,000 per nuclear family, more if you count it as the extended family (grandparents etc), more if you count the other costs of the war (damage to the country etc).

It's good that they're giving the money to the families. It's just that it's not that much money for the US, almost like they're just giving the loose change from their pockets. And of course the families would rather have their relative back.

[Dinner]

Almost all of the money spent in Iraq by the US has gone to military spending and thus to military contractors. If we spent a fraction of that on reconstruction back in 2003 then the insurgency likely wouldn't have taken off. All it would have cost us would have been the cost of bridges, working public utilities, and subsidies to get Iraqi business working and hiring people.

[SlowwHand]

An attempt was made. How soon you forget.

[Dinner]

Not a serious attempt. I was there during the time in question and very, very, very little was done.

After the insurgency got started the Administration kind of sort of started rebuilding in that they announced several big projects few of which ever actually got done. Basically Bush did the same thing to New Orleans that he did to Iraq; announce things and make PR moves but didn't actually get much done. It's garbage and it really is Bush's fault.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Richelieu


You got a lot of stuff up that ass man. Well, actually you have a bit less than you did before that post but still...

The truth hurts, eh?

See ColdPhoenix post for more exact figures, which shows my guesses were very close.

2500 $ is a large sum for an Iraqi peasant, but it's a pathetic sum compared to what US has the ability to pay.

From CP's figures, US has spent 15 000 per liberated Iraqi. This means that in the hypothetical situation that 100% percent of the population was killed, the damage fee (if someone was still there to recieve it) would be only 1/6 of the money spent on the war.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Almost all of the money spent in Iraq by the US has gone to military spending and thus to military contractors. If we spent a fraction of that on reconstruction back in 2003 then the insurgency likely wouldn't have taken off. All it would have cost us would have been the cost of bridges, working public utilities, and subsidies to get Iraqi business working and hiring people.

US growth would have also been lower without those Keynesian policies.

[TCO]

It's a cluster****. Let's leave.

[KrazyHorse]

Pu-double s-y