Iraq War could cost $2 Trillion Dollars

That would solve ALL the Social Security problems!

Published on January 14, 2006 By COL Gene In Politics

Today Knight Ridder carried a story about a study completed by two economists, one of which is a Nobel Prize-winner, which estimated the long tem cost of the Iraq War could reach $ 2 Trillion dollars. This study included the ongoing cost in Iraq over the next decade of $265 Billion, the cost of 35,000 injured and the replacement of much of the Army and Marine Corps equipment.

That is enough money to SOLVE the baby boomer problems with Social Security, Rebuild ALL the ageing infrastructure in the entire country or go a long way to solve the Medicare funding needs. Instead of dealing with those unimportant needs of Americans, we deposed ONE of about 20 evil dictators in this world who posed NO DANGER TO AMERICA! Just think of the tax increases this war will impose on OUR CHILDREN!

Comments (Page 1)

stutefish

on Jan 14, 2006

It would solve all the Social Security problems temporarily.

In reality, it would simply postpone the problems of Social Security.

Also, it would leave about 2 Trillion Dollars worth of freedom, democracy, and counter-terrorism unsolved.

Might as well say we should phase out Social Security altogether, establish personal retirement programs like 401(k)s and Roth IRAs, and use the SS taxes to fund an additional several billions dollars of War on Terror.

Solving one problem at the expense of another is usually not good policy.

COL Gene

on Jan 14, 2006

Your logic would be correct IF the Iraq War had made us safer. We have just as much of a danger in 2006 from the radical Islamic terrorist as we did in 2003; WE have spent all the money, killed 2,200 Americans and injured another 35,000 WITH NO REAL solution to the danger to us from terrorism. WHERE IS THE RETURN from our investment?

COL Gene

on Jan 14, 2006

The problem with phasing out SS is that you still have the issue of funding the retirement of millions who are too old for a 401K option. That was what was wrong with the Bush plan. He wanted to convert the system for the younger workers but all that did was to make the funding of the older workers worse. There was NEVER a plan as to how and meet the commitments to the 40 and older workers and divert the SS tax for the younger workers.

Leauki

on Jan 14, 2006

WHERE IS THE RETURN from our investment?

Al-Qaeda have made many enemies among Arab Muslims.

Iraqis and Jordanians now hate Al-Qaeda and have joined our war against Islamic fundamentalism.

Now that the western world and Israel as well as many of those Al-Qaeda could conceivably recruit have Al-Qaeda as a common enemy, we are much closer to winning the war than before.

Also, Libya has given up her WMD program. And unless you are personally immune against Libyan bombs, that would probably constitute being safer.

And IF Iran tries something, American and British (as well as Iraqi) troops are now at their border, on BOTH sides, since we also took Afghanistan.

BenUser

on Jan 14, 2006

I agree, the money could be better put to use, or better yet, not spent at all. The money we're spending on the war in Iraq is all debt. Neocons like to bring up the fact that we haven't been attacked on our soil since 9/11, therefore, the money is well spent. The reason we haven't been attacked on our soil is that we've eliminated the Islamic terrorist sleeper cells here, of which there were few to begin with. The war has intensified hatred of the U.S. by Muslims and has made the Middle East much more unstable. There is evidence that the people of Iran elected Ahmadinejad, a raving lunatic, because the Iranians feared an attack by the U.S. and they wanted a hard-liner. It could turn out that our invasion of Iraq was the biggest blunder in U.S. history.

Leauki

on Jan 14, 2006

Ben, I see you completely ignored the REAL points a neo-con made and continue to argue against what you believe that neo-cons say.

Why don't you address the three points I made:

1. Libya gave up its WMD program.

2. Iraqis and Jordanians are now hostile to Al-Qaeda.

3. Iran is surrounded by American and British troops.

That's three outcomes of the Iraq war that neo-cons constantly bring up. But you never addressed them. You continue addressing only those points YOU claim neo-cons make.

COL Gene

on Jan 14, 2006

All that, if true, has not reduced the threat of terrorist attacks. Look at 2005 all over the world. Al-Qaeda has dispersed and is harder to get at then ever. We are hated by more Moslems then before attacking Iraq. We may have troops in neighboring Iraq but if we moved them into Iran, the violence in Iraq would most likely get worse. We are tied down with a war that has NOT MADE the United States Safer. Everything the so called neo-cons told us before the war has turned out to be wrong.

Leauki

on Jan 14, 2006

You still haven't addressed two of the three points.

I also wonder where you always get your news that Muslims hate the US. The Iraqis don't seem to hate the US. Perhaps it's only those Muslims who don't know the US?

In that case the US' best strategy would be to make more Muslims learn to know the US, aka take over more of their countries and show them what can be done.

And how is Al-Qaeda harder to get than ever? Is the number of possible hiding places inversely proportional to the area somewhat controlled by the US?

It's impossible to "get" Al-Qaeda. But what we can do is take away their breeding ground.

Al-Qaeda and Arab nationalists have so far lost Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Libya, all because of Iraq. How is that not a grand success?

kingbee

on Jan 15, 2006

In that case the US' best strategy would be to make more Muslims learn to know the US, aka take over more of their countries and show them what can be done

aaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha

COL Gene

on Jan 15, 2006

Leauki

We are in a NO WIN situation. Look at the reaction in Pakistan today. If you believe the majority of Moslems support us you are kidding yourself. There are some Moslem governments that provide support but even in these countries the majority of the population are NOT REAL SUPPORTERS. Jordan, at lease the ruling members, have been helpful. The new Iraq government NEEDS us to stay in power. The majority of the people want us to get out. Iraq is a hot bed of terrorist operations. We do not know what is taking place within Lebanon or Libya. I doubt the majority of the people would support the U S against Moslems, even the more moderate Moslems.

How would we take over ANY other country in the area? We can not maintain the force levels in Iraq with the size of our military. If we moved our troops from Iraq to another country what would the terrorists do in Iraq? Our policy has very FEW UP SIDES and very many DOWN SIDES. For one thing, we do not have a military of the size needed to become involved in another area even if we were attacked. Bush has refused to deal with the fact the active military is TOO SMALL (his campaign position in 2000) and we have invaded Iraq which was not a real threat to our security. Between the military in country, those recovering and those getting ready to deploy, we have 500,000 military tied up with the Iraq War.

Leauki

on Jan 15, 2006

Col, I know you are in a no-win situation.

Those Muslims who now know the US, support the US. The others resent them for it.

More will fall for the US, just like in Japan and Europe. Sometimes history cannot be stopped, even if you try very hard.

COL Gene

on Jan 15, 2006

It is not me in a no win situation with the Moslems. It is the U.S. that is in a bad situation. Support from a few governments is one thing what I am talking about is support in general.

stevendedalus

on Jan 16, 2006

Al-Qaeda have made many enemies among Arab Muslims.

Iraqis and Jordanians now hate Al-Qaeda and have joined our war against Islamic fundamentalism.

Now that the western world and Israel as well as many of those Al-Qaeda could conceivably recruit have Al-Qaeda as a common enemy, we are much closer to winning the war than before.
That was true on 9/11; Iraqi war had nothing to with it.

Also, Libya has given up her WMD program. And unless you are personally immune against Libyan bombs, that would probably constitute being safer.
Again, this motion was in the works long before the Iraqi war.
And IF Iran tries something, American and British (as well as Iraqi) troops are now at their border, on BOTH sides, since we also took Afghanistan.

Yeah, right, like we are in a position to launch another ground war.

MasonM

on Jan 16, 2006

Wow, Gene. Can you get any more pathetically obvious?

COL Gene

on Jan 16, 2006

Better take a look at what is taking place in Pakistan. If you believe we are making friends in the Moslem world, think again! http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/16/international/asia/16pakistan.html?th&emc=th

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!