It's finally over

**ninja9578** · 08-19-2010 11:46 AM

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.

**poopman** · 08-19-2010 04:54 PM

they will just send the troops to iran now.

**Prince_RIP** · 08-19-2010 05:13 PM

And afghanistan...?

**Xei** · 08-19-2010 07:33 PM

To be honest I don't think the war was particularly important with respects to the economy.

**Spartiate** · 08-19-2010 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by Xei

To be honest I don't think the war was particularly important with respects to the economy.

COSTOFWAR.COM - The Cost of War

**dajo** · 08-19-2010 07:43 PM

i'm listening..

**juroara** · 08-19-2010 07:54 PM

pffft...nice one. Iraq war over, hah.

Seriously?

**Xei** · 08-19-2010 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by Spartiate

COSTOFWAR.COM - The Cost of War

omg leik big number

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.

**Descensus** · 08-19-2010 08:58 PM

Bound to happen sometime. Now they need to stop dicking around in the entire region...

**Spartiate** · 08-19-2010 09:18 PM

Originally Posted by Xei

omg leik big number

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.

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.

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.

**Marvo** · 08-19-2010 09:21 PM

What if all that money had been put into developing fusion technology. No oil wars anymore.

**Spartiate** · 08-19-2010 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by Marvo

What if all that money had been put into developing fusion technology. No oil wars anymore.

Or education lol.

**Xei** · 08-20-2010 01:19 AM

Originally Posted by Marvo

What if all that money had been put into developing fusion technology. No oil wars anymore.

But then what would be the point of the trillions of dollars the US pours into defence?

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.

Or education lol.

wat

**Spartiate** · 08-20-2010 01:28 AM

Originally Posted by Xei

wat

$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.

**Xei** · 08-20-2010 01:40 AM

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.

**Spartiate** · 08-20-2010 01:54 AM

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...

**Caprisun** · 08-20-2010 03:53 AM

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.

**ArcanumNoctis** · 08-20-2010 04:42 AM

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.

**Invader** · 08-20-2010 05:10 AM

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.

**ArcanumNoctis** · 08-20-2010 05:14 AM

Originally Posted by Invader

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.

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.

**Marvo** · 08-20-2010 05:52 AM

Originally Posted by Xei

But then what would be the point of the trillions of dollars the US pours into defence?

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.

wat

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

**Spartiate** · 08-20-2010 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by Marvo

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

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.

**ninja9578** · 08-20-2010 02:50 PM

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?

**Alric** · 08-20-2010 06:14 PM

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.

**Alric** · 08-20-2010 06:21 PM

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.