Printable View
Thank you Mr President: Goodbye Iraq: Last US combat brigade heads home - Yahoo! News For once a president kept the promise that got him elected in the first place. Took 2 years longer than we wanted, but at least it's done.
Now maybe the economy will pick up without the money drain of combat troops in Iraq.
There are still 50,000 non-combat troops in Iraq, but that's not going to costs us 10 billion dollars a month.
they will just send the troops to iran now.
And afghanistan...?
To be honest I don't think the war was particularly important with respects to the economy.
COSTOFWAR.COM - The Cost of WarQuote:
Originally Posted by Xei
i'm listening..
:cheeky: pffft...nice one. Iraq war over, hah.
Seriously? :shock:
omg leik big numberQuote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Seriously you can't just post '$750,000,000,000' without some kind of context. Such as the $100,000,000,000,000 or so that the U.S. made in that period.
Bound to happen sometime. Now they need to stop dicking around in the entire region...
US public revenue in 2009 was $2.1 trillion, so assuming it was the same since 2001 (it was probably lower but I don't feel like factoring inflation and all that stuff), the US "made" 18.9 trillion dollars in 2001-2010. So the $1.09 trillion that the wars in the Middle-East have cost the US in 2001-2010 represent 5.8% of its total income during that period.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Another way of looking at it is that the US national debt currently stands at $13.2 trillion, so the wars theoretically account for 12.1% of that.
What if all that money had been put into developing fusion technology. No oil wars anymore.
Or education lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvo
But then what would be the point of the trillions of dollars the US pours into defence? :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvo
But yeah... fusion apathy pisses me right off. It's not just America, of course.
Although fusion's just a small part of the picture. I mean, by themselves, what oil usage would fusion power stations offset? Just that used by petroleum-burning power stations, which is actually a very tiny fraction. It doesn't help with transport, it doesn't help with materials, it doesn't help with petrochemicals for agriculture, it doesn't help with heating...
The real problem is not energy at all. Not mid term, anyway: we have lots of coal to burn, lots of uranium to react. The problem is infrastructure.
If we had mastered fusion technology tomorrow, I doubt it would make the slightest bit of difference to oil wars.
watQuote:
Or education lol.
$1 trillion is more than what the Unites States spends in a year on its entire public education. I think education is where public money would do the most good in the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Yeah but $1 trillion is what they spent on warfare over an entire decade... it's not really comparable to the year's education budget.
I don't really know about your state schools so I can't comment. I think the education system in the UK is pretty rubbish though. Way too rigid... and if you don't pass the test to get into a good school, pretty poor quality. Even at a good school I basically just ended up self-teaching.
I'm just pointing out what $1 trillion can do in the US (you seemed to think it was insignificant). From my point of view (I'm not American), education is the service in the US that needs the biggest boost at the moment. Then again money spent there will probably pay for teaching creationism and other biased bullcrap that seeps its way into the US curriculum...
I think it's hilarious that you put a peace sign in your post. Is there an "opposite of peace sign?" Because that is the future of Iraq.
They shuffled troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. That doesn't mean the Iraq war is over. It is military strategy, which the reports on a promise being kept is strictly political. Afghanistan is to the right side of Iran, plus it borders Pakistan. Iraq is on the left side of Iran, which it borders Syria, Turkey, and Iran.
World Map
Logically speaking, there is zero reduction in budget use.
If I had to make an educated guess, I would say the budget costs are going to increase because the war is going to continue to expand. We started out first in Afghanistan, then Iraq, then Pakistan, then ???. Probably Iran since it is being surrounded and closed off from likely allies.
The Middle Eastern countries know what's going to happen to them now if they try to trade their oil for the Euro over the U.S. dollar. Guess we made our point.
Actually, if they didn't do that, our monetary value would still decline due to our continuing debt to China.Quote:
Originally Posted by Invader
This means that in actuality, we are fucking with China's and/or Russia's resources and growth. That is why China and Russia are getting increasingly involved with Iran. They are playing good/bad cop with Iran, but ultimately they will protect their vital resources.
You are right, transport is one of the biggest things we use energy on, and fast transport that runs on electricity is difficult to make, especially when it comes to planes, and while fusion technology could give us a lot of energy, it won't really be infinite and it will have waste material. I still think it would be a step in the right direction though :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
We can already develop cars and trains that don't run on fossil fuels. I'm pretty sure that oil usage by boats and planes is insignificant next to all of the world's land transportation. Planes are starting to use biofuels at least (mixed with normal jet fuel) and large boats always have the potential for nuclear propulsion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvo
Of course Iraq will be at war in a year from now, but the USA won't be involved. They'll have democracy for a few months, then there will be civil war. Everyone knows that who's not licking George Bush's balls.
Yes, imagine if all of the money spent in Iraq had been put to education. We might not have such a poor schooling system compared to other countries. Are we even in the top 20 anymore?
Image that all the money spent on the war, was never collected in taxes and the people had it still. There probably wouldn't be a recession right now. Also, nothing can be done in Iraq if they go into civil war and kill each other. I mean we did the best we could, we have been there for years. We can't be there forever, eventually they have to do their own thing.
Oh and one other thing. I knew it was just propaganda when you first posted this but I went and checked it out. There are still 50,000 American troops in Iraq. They are not combat troops though(as if there are noncombat members of military with their own tanks). I suppose they are peace keeping troops. You do realize that we fought entire wars with 'peace keeping' troops before right? Oh I forget they weren't wars, they were just a "military engagements" that lasted years, with thousands of people dying.
I mean seriously, you have to play pretty loose with the words army, when 50,000 people isn't considered an army.
There's still 50,000 troops in Iraq training and working with Iraqi police forces, and more will be back when it goes the country goes to shit.
Because everyone knows if you pour a ton of money into a department, it will automatically improve. Last time I checked, it was President Obama who decided the fate of Iraq. George Bush started the war, I know, but Obama assumed full responsibility when he ran for president. All atrocities still pending fruition as a result of this decision will be almost entirely on the hands of Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
Mmm, something interesting would be if Iraq went to war with Iran.
The US has been fucking up countries all over the world since the Cold War and forgetting about them, Iraq will be no different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caprisun
Oh, trust me I know. It didn't have to be that way again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
No, it has to do with the stability of the region. No president would be able to create democracy in Iraq for more than a few years. Where do you expect the money that you want to pour into Iraq to come from? Republicans don't realize that money spent on war has to come out of the economy via taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caprisun
I wouldn't get too caught up in the media.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
-Old battle buddy of mine who's still serving in the military.Quote:
Don't believe the news when you hear that there are no longer "combat brigades" in Iraq. There most definitely are, they just changed our name to "Advise and Assist Brigades" so it sounds more pleasant.
Wait wait wait... if you run for President, that means you're endorsing the actions of your predecessor?Quote:
Because everyone knows if you pour a ton of money into a department, it will automatically improve. Last time I checked, it was President Obama who decided the fate of Iraq. George Bush started the war, I know, but Obama assumed full responsibility when he ran for president. All atrocities still pending fruition as a result of this decision will be almost entirely on the hands of Obama.
er wat
Wasn't there only 50,000 troops in Iraq to start with? So they had troops in Iraq, had a huge surge of troops, then went back to normal levels and said they withdrew all the combat troops? I guess it was true after all, we will stay over there forever and 50,000 troops in that country as the new 'normal'.
Over you say? victory? this is no victory, this is just the beginning.
Things will likely spiral back to chaos, and we will never leave entirely, just like we never leave any nation entirely after we blow it up.
We are still in Germany, even though the last bomb we dropped on them was in 1945.
You're thinking of Japan.Quote:
Originally Posted by guerilla
You're thinking of The Bomb.
And anybody who uses the "cost of war" argument doesn't realize that America will build up its military whether it's in a war or not, and most people don't seem to realize that it costs just as much if not more to train soldiers for combat as it does to actually fight a war. "No war" does not translate to more money for things like education.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
No, it means you assume responsibility for what happens now and in the future. You can't blame everything on your predecessor being an "idiot." It was Obama's decision to place an arbitrary date for the witdrawal of troops which undermines any progress made by the Bush administration. Whatever happens in Iraq now is therefore entirely President Obama's responsibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
second that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
god when it'll all be over?
The total cost per taxpayer on average is about $7,500 since 2001. At well under a grand per year, I seriously doubt that not going to war would have prevented the recession. It really isn't that hard to trim out a few hundred bucks from the yearly budget for most Americans. It may require sacrificing a luxury good or two, but it can be done relatively painlessly. Perhaps if people lived within their means the recession could have been averted, but sadly, this is America, land of the brave, the free, and the overconsumers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
But yeah, Iraq was a stupid detour in a retarded war. We should have just bombed the shit out of Afghanistan right off the bat to take out the Taliban while they were small. Instead, we putzed around for the better side of a decade in a region only distantly related to the original cause of war, and now the Taliban is winning.
We did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario92
You sound totally clueless when you talk like that. You might as well be telling poorer families to screw off, since you clearly don't care about them. That is a lot of money. Most people cant effortlessly cut 800 dollars out of their budget each year.
The recession was caused by shitty lending practises and speculation in the housing market in the US and would have happened whether or not people had a few extra bucks.
Also, find Bin Laden already, it's getting pathetic.
Yea but wasting money, doesn't exactly help you get out of the recession either does it? Which is the main problem, that the government just makes everything worse.
Of course, you are assuming a perfectly linear tax curve, when in reality, this is not so. The extraordinarily wealthy are taxed much more heavily. So in reality, poor families are only getting taxed maybe thirty bucks a year for the war. And as for the wealthy, I guess they just have to wait another year before they purchase that new yacht...Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
There is no war tax. You get taxed the same whether we are in a war or not.
There used to be. http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...one-tax_x.html
So the money for wars comes from... where?Quote:
Originally Posted by Caprisun
I would presume from siphoning it out of other government programs...like education.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
So... taxes.
I think what he means is that there isn't a war tax in the sense that you have to pay it separately from your regular federal income tax. It isn't like a social security tax or anything. You would only pay more in taxes during a war if the government raised taxes on your income level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
It doesn't make any mathematical sense though... war does cost money. So sooner or later... you'll have to pay for it. Of course, it's customary these days to choose later, but you'll still have to pay. Doesn't really make any difference if it's nominally a 'war tax' or not...
You pay for the military, not the war. That cost is relatively the same in war times as it is in peace times (it costs a lot to train soldiers and maintain a military.) Whether you experience a tax hike depends on how catastrophic the war is. If things go well and you make a profit, then you don't have to pay for it because it payed for itself. Think of it like a security system. You pay for a security system to be installed at your house and for the sake of this argument lets say you have to pay a certain amount every year for upkeep. You don't have to pay extra everytime the alarm goes off, that's just doing it's job. We pay money for the military to be ready to go to war at a moments notice, they don't need a fundraiser. Maybe the government could choose to increase the military's budget during a war, that could be a valid argument, except the military's budget has been growing at a fairly steady rate since WWII in both times of peace and war. So I am just saying that you would still be paying more or less the same amount of money to the military whether they were in Iraq or not. I keep hearing the argument of "that money should have gone to education," as if the military is reaching directly into the pockets of the education department. That money would have gone to the military no matter what, they just chose to do with it something that a lot people think was wasteful.
They pay for it by printing money. When they print money you devalue all current money in the market place by a little to give the money you are printing value. So in a lot of cases we are not directly paying in taxes, we are paying indirectly through the inflation caused by the government printing money.
Also the only reason that is true caprisun, is because we been in war nonstop since WW2. There really isn't a peace time in the US, we are always at war. Even when war isn't declared we are in all sort of international conflicts, where are troops are fighting some where.
Well if they didn't increase taxes or add new ones (which doesn't sound like something the Bush government would've done), they'd reallocate money from other social programs and/or put it on the national debt (which accrued $7.5 trillion since 2001).Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I also disagree with Caprisun that a military at peace is roughly as expensive as a military at war. There are still (and probably more) training exercises during war (in addition to normal combat) and recruitment is stepped up. The majority of your operations are conducted halfway around the world and a lot of military resources are used for civilian reconstruction projects. Then you have to factor in casualties and materiel loss... $$$
We are building permanent military bases there. It's a form of colonization.
Except that its a money pit, and we don't get any money back from any of our 'colonies'. Which we actually have a lot of all around the world.
Well, we're not doing it for the U.S. We're working for the banks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
So you are arguing that the US spent no more money going to war in Iraq than if it had left it's military at home? you can't tell me it doesn't cost more to operate a military in wartime than peacetime. Not to mention, the US's military spending has been insane long before the Iraq War. We should have cut back on military spending decades ago, but right-wingers flip out about the threat to our nation every time someone tries.
There isn't anything to say about this other than is just isn't true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
There have been four "official" wars since the end of WWII, each one lasting 5-6 years. That leaves plenty of peace time. We have special forces deployed around the world on peace keeping missions around the clock, but that doesn't constitute a war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Well I did. It seems counterintuitive at first but it makes sense if you really think about it. Soldiers are either overseas fighting real battles or they are here simulating battles. In many cases it costs more to simulate a battle than it does to fight a real battle.Quote:
Originally Posted by horsey101
Military spending remains relatively constant. Recruitment isn't necessarily stepped up during wars, at least not successfully since the military has been seriously hurting for recruits since the start of the war. The troops at home continue to train while the rest go overseas, going overseas doesn't cost any more than training at home, so it remains constant. Material loss has been especially insignificant in this war and we don't automtically replace every tank, hummer, and helicopter that we lose. As for civilian reconstruction, I don't know but I doubt that really puts a dent in the budget.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
I wasn't talking about official wars at all, since most of the wars we fight in are anything but official. I wasn't talking about peace keeping troops either, except in cases where the 'peace keeping' troops are activity at war. For example I wouldn't consider us at peace right now, even though we are not officially at war with anyone. Its obvious we are fighting at least two wars in other countries at the moment. This is what the US calls peace though.
Semantically, without a declaration of war, it isn't considered a war. A police action or heated dispute, perhaps, but not war.
Yea but that is just semantics, and doesn't really help your argument at all. Since people are dying, and troops are deployed and fighting in battles on large scales. In other words they are in war mode, and spending far more than they would in actual peace. Which we havn't had for a very long time.
Alright, so in other words, our "peace time" is really "war time." And if that is true, then the war in Iraq didn't really cost us a hell of a lot more than we were already spending. After all, what is one more conflict in a world where our military is constantly at work?
The problem is 50 years of war is taking a great toll on our country, and is pretty much bankrupting us.
We spend a hefty portion of our GDP on the military and defense, no doubt, but I would hardly say it is bankrupting us solely on its own. Health care isn't exactly effective or efficient spending, which is one of the things the new bill tried to fix. Protectionism is something I wouldn't call smart spending, either. There are all sorts of costs and concerns in our nation. War is part of the problem, but far from the entire picture.
Alric, special forces operations don't consitute war any more than a S.W.A.T. team drug bust does. And it can't bankrupt us if it's our most profitable enterprise.
I wasn't talking about special forces, I was talking about places like Iraq. Where 50,000 troops are stations, they drive around in tanks. People shoot at them they shoot back, troops die, things blow up. That is war and its expensive.
Also war isn't profitable at all. Its a total drain on everything, not a single cent is made in the process. How can you say its profitable?
The US defense budget for 2011 is going to be 1 trillion dollars. That is assuming they stay within budget. At a trillion dollars for a single year, you can hardly say the that the spending is only part of the problem. It is a HUGE MAJOR part of the problem.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._-_FY_2007.png
Defense makes up about a fifth of national spending. Now stop yapping about how war is bankrupting us. War is only a part of the larger category of "defense," anyway. As Caprisun pointed out, it costs money to operate bases in the U.S. and train new recruits. It also costs money to develop new weapons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Ok, that's Iraq. You said we were in a perpetual state of warfare and cited the special forces as a the driving force behind that situation.
War can be very profitable, and not just in a monetary sense. You can win valuable allies in war which gives you power and security and that could help you economically. It doesn't always have to be direct, but we can also profit from the production of military equipment. To say we don't make a single cent is very short-sighted.
Saying defense is only a 5th of our spending so its not a big deal, is pretty silly. Since its obvious we are wasting huge amounts of money across the board. Of course it costs money to do all that other stuff, but when you just keep stacking more spending upon more spending, what you get is a bankrupt country. Its pretty clear to everyone that the US is nearly bankrupt, and that we are only making things worse as time goes on. If you want to argue that other areas are killing us too, that is fine. I will agree that things like social security is bankrupting our country as well, but that doesn't change the fact that war is a huge part of what is killing our country and our economy.
I didn't cite special forces. I said peace keeping troops, who stay around for years fighting people and the dozen or so 'small' wars we fought.
You could probably argue that a nice portion of defense spending is a necessary evil. Imagine the publicity America would have gotten if we had invaded Iraq, killed Saddam, then left. The country would have been left in shambles. The least we could have done was stick around to help rebuilt. It wasn't an attractive option, but probably better than the alternative. Not invading altogether would have been better for short term GDP, sure, but now we at least have a sort of ally in the middle east, and that is an area where we could use one.
Of course there is wasteful defense spending too. (Do we really need to keep troops in Japan still?) But there is waste in everything the government does. It would be nice to trim it, but that seems rather difficult to do. I don't think the U.S. dropping everything and running back home from all across the world is a good idea. Our presence is still needed in some nations. It costs money, sure, but it isn't singlehandedly robbing the U.S. of all money.
We already have allies in the middle east. We didn't need Iraq as an ally, and we didn't need to invade just so we could have a military base in the area. It was all unnecessary from the start.
Of course it was unnecessary. I don't like the Iraq war anymore than you do. What I'm saying is that it didn't have a huge impact on our economy.
The estimated cost of the war in Iraq alone, is something like 3 trillion dollars. How can you say 3 trillion isn't a big impact?
3 trillion spaced out over a decade. If you just sucked off 3 trillion from the U.S. in a day, it would be a big deal. But when you space things out, it really doesn't have that massive an impact. Think of it like buying a house. You don't just fork over 250k...you get a loan and pay it off in small, manageable payments.
Umm no, it doesn't work like that. Three trillion is a ton, no matter how long it is spread over. That is a quarter of our national debt. Its funny you bring up housing loans, because that is exactly how its works. We bite off more than we chew, make huge interest payments then eventually default on the loan and lose the house. Instead we didn't actually gain anything from the war, so instead of a foreclosure we have a bankruptcy.
Bro, we're in debt. We aren't sunk yet, and we aren't going to sink. We aren't bankrupt, we aren't foreclosed. The war did not kill our country. Chill please.
I don't think you realize how much debt 13 trillion dollars is. We are very close to the point, where we will never be able to pay it off. In fact, its very unlikely we can pay off the debt as it is now. And for the most part the government has stopped trying. They refuse to cut spending, and the debt keeps raising faster and faster every year. Almost the entire amount of money we pay in income taxes, goes to just paying the interest on the debt.
We are seriously screwed. The only realistic way to pay off the debt at the moment, is through massive inflation, which will devalue our money till its worth almost nothing.
Yeah, just because the war didn't cause the crisis... doesn't mean it isn't a crisis. :l
I hear that the US is only halfway through it's bad private debt mountain... though I have a feeling the US isn't going to swallow another huge stimulus this time.
So in other words...abandon ship or abandon hope. Alright. Imma move to Canada then. Catch you in the aftermath.
The only reason we aren't "bankrupt" is because congress has been feverishly raising the debt limit moments before we reach it. No country that has its own currency can ever go bankrupt by the standard definition. Our debt now is at about 93% of our GDP, however. This means that we owe almost as much as our entire country is able to produce in an entire year. This is not a sustainable path to be on, and amounts to virtual bankruptcy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario92
Would you consider yourself bankrupt if you were in debt by a year's wage? How many mortgages would fall under this category when first taken out?
I don't pretend this is an intelligent point but I'd like to hear some explanation.
The GDP is a poor measure of a country's ability to pay off public debt. Only the national government can pay off the debt, so it should be compared to the government's income (mostly through taxes).
In the case of the US, the public debt is currently 637% of the total yearly federal revenue.
If America sinks, everyone else goes with us. Our GDP accounts for 25% of the entire world's. It is in the world's best interest if America does not go down rapidly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario92
HahaQuote:
Originally Posted by Black_Eagle
Right.
It's true... cutting roughly 25% of all countries' exports isn't going to be great news.
What a great time to be living in North Korea!Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
True, true.
It's not like the world will completely crash back into the dark ages. Sure, it won't be pleasant, but don't think the rest of the world is screwed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Yeah, but the U.S. gradually losing power until it is no longer the world hegemon probably isn't going to seriously hurt anyone but us. The book "The Post-American World" is a neat read, even though I never finished it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Eagle
On another note, I am interested to see what textbooks will say about today in 10 years.
Oh, that Obama... What a talker! He says he has called our combat troops home from Iraq, yet we still have troops in Iraq, and many of them are engaged in combat. Words are fun. I love politicians.
Journalists face challenge: Is it really ‘end of combat’ in Iraq? | The Upshot Yahoo! News - Yahoo! News
US Declares Iraq War ‘Over,’ But Fighting Continues -- News from Antiwar.com
If it cannot be interpreted at least half a dozen ways, either it wasn't a major statement or a major politician didn't state it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
They need a buzz for the coming election season. I'd still rather have them than the Republicans.
I don't know.....This November will sure be very interesting.Quote:
Black_Eagle
They need a buzz for the coming election season. I'd still rather have them than the Republicans.
I just hope that if the Republicans win, they make a better image for themselves.
I hope that people stay pissed at the republicans, get pissed at the democrats, and people turn to both the green and libertarian parties, respectively.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight
I agree, both parties are truly infringing on our rights, and I would be glad to see more turn to the libertarian party.