nationalpriorities.org — You may have seen this running counter before, but the number is so staggering that it needs to be reviewed periodically. It's a running total of the U.S. taxpayer cost of the Iraq War. The number is based on Congressional appropriations.
Sep 24, 2006 View in Crawl 4
neozeedSep 25, 2006
Ah yes, assuming there was 0 effort in extracting, refining & shipping said oil. Now try to run some real numbers.
shadoweSep 25, 2006
My reason for supporting the war, have nothing to do with the "Both Teams" mentality. But maybe since you seem so sure that the Dems are against it, you better check your records and make sure your representatives are really representing you.
halleyscometSep 25, 2006
@ShadoweRight, I forgot the Conservative Extremist economic Policy:If the Economy is going well for a Democrat, then it's a coincidence, or the Democrat is benefiting from the actions of the last republican in Office.If a Republican is suffering from a bad economy then it's the fault of the previous Democrat.Please, oh enlightened one, tell me what exactly did Clinton do to "Hand" Bush a recession? Do you actually understand some of the BS lines fed to you by the Talking Heads, or are you just parroting what Rush told you?Here's a news flash for you, the deficit spending used to finance the War in Iraq is being paid for by bonds. These bonds are being issued by the US Government. The Interest on these bonds has to be paid every year.The next president will have to either slash government spending to the bone, or raise taxes in order to avoid defaulting on the loan. If you think the recession you're blaming on Clinton is bad, wait until you see what happens when we have to chose between ending a massive percentage of government spending, or defaulting on Trillions in foreign held bonds.
halleyscometSep 25, 2006
xGORDOx "Do you forget all the warnings by the Clinton admin and teh Democrats about how Saddam was such a bad man and had WMD's?"I don't recall Clinton making any attempts to start a new War with Iraq. He seemed to be aware of the fact that getting inspectors in was the best solution. As mocked as they were, we now know they actually did a good job of keeping Saddam in check."Euros?Come on."Actually, yes. The switch from Dollars to Euros is a big reason why Iraq was attacked, and why Iran is on the chopping block.Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse<a class="user" href="http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html">http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html</a><a class="user" href="http://digg.com/tech_news/Petrodollar_war:_Dollars_,_Euros_and_the_upcoming_Iranian_Euro_Oil_Exchange">http://digg.com/tech_news/Petrodollar_war:_Dollars_,_Euros_and_the_upcoming_Iranian_Euro_Oil_Exchange</a>Iraq conspiracy<a class="user" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1oPEfa9Lws">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1oPEfa9Lws</a>Congressman Ron Paul Speaks Out AGAINST War With IRAN - April 2006 <a class="user" href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7456931596878368112&q=iran+duration%3Along">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7456931596878368112&q=iran+duration%3Along</a>The End of Dollar Hegemony Congressman Ron Paul of Texas <a class="user" href="http://digg.com/security/The_End_of_Dollar_Hegemony">http://digg.com/security/The_End_of_Dollar_Hegemony</a>Iran oil not traded for dollars anymore<a class="user" href="http://digg.com/tech_deals/Iran_oil_not_traded_for_dollars_anymore">http://digg.com/tech_deals/Iran_oil_not_traded_for_dollars_anymore</a>
Closed AccountSep 25, 2006Submitter
It's sooo much easier for them to hide and attempt to sabotage a story than to comment or argue intelligently. That requires a different kind of DNA.
maddoggSep 25, 2006
"But what is really puzzling here is the intellectual failure of the conservatives and libertarians who have cheered for this war from the beginning. Why do these people, who otherwise understand the failure of government in all aspects of domestic politics, believe that the government has a Midas touch in dealing with foreign affairs? Here we have a serious and dramatic example of cognitive dissonance."
igotdugoutSep 25, 2006
Wtf is with all these dumbasses putting this as inaccurate.If you even knew a little about war you'll know it costs ALOT of money. Profiters generally happen to be the weapon manufacteuers and damn they make a lot. Know how much a Tomahawk missile cost? Around 1.5 million dollars. How many did we fire? I'll let you figure that out.
Closed AccountSep 25, 2006
"Bush's Iraq war?" You mean AIPAC's Iraq war? I really doubt any president could have held back for long against the pro-Semitic, "neoconservative"* war machine. Kerry's voting record prior to 2004 was 100% in favor of using the US military to stamp out all of Judaism's enemies in the Middle East. The problem is not the Redneck-in-Chief; the problem is the 30+ years of hardline Jewish nationalists in the war office looking to use our military machine for their own ends, even if it means hundreds of thousands, of white, hispanic, and black Americans losing their lives.It's easy for the backers of the loser to sit back and say their horse wouldn't have caved in and run the same race.---* As if there is anything "conservative" about increasing the tax burden, immigration policies biased against whites/Europeans, increasing the legal burden, and hijacking the military to attack anyone who shakes a stick at Israel.
hurfydurfurSep 26, 2006
Artificial demand is all over the place. Farm subsidies, import restrictions, tarrifs. We'll never know because there's only one history to study. However, many point to it as a big help, artificial or not. Creating jobs, work, money changing hands. Wow, can't you see the parallel here to Iraq? Digged down for history? Fine don't agree with me, Google will:<a class="user" href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=wwii+ended+great+depression&btnG=Google+Search">http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=wwii+ended+great+depression&btnG=Google+Search</a>Am I saying "yay WWII", no. But anything less dramatic would have prolonged the depression or maybe even caused us not to be able to afford the war's length.
hurfydurfurSep 27, 2006
I thought for sure that both Iraq conflicts started after a "recession". Please, keep flaming, it's an opportunity for me to test my calmness promise. I'm trying to talk civily here.You can't compare 2000 years to what has become famous since Reagan. I don't want to go back that far. War is like stepping on an ant hill, it destroys and keeps the workers busy while creating all this activity which grows the economy. Does War hurt the economy? Maybe over the long term. But what if we had a bunch of small meaningless wars with little risk?But I guess I look at it in the way of Keynesian economics which was completely wrong in it's prediction of the US economy returning to pre-war levels after WWII. I've been wrong before (please note I'm admitting this -- unlike most digg conversers). Since recent news, I thought gas prices were politically motivated but now read and listened to analysts who explain that oil is a global market that even the US government couldn't control (significantly). Which is unfortunate to learn since I'm a hippie liberal bastard.So perhaps The New Deal did more than going to war. But considering the latest bill approved for Iraq, putting the expense at ~$430B, I can't see the argument that war doesn't help considering we've been in these small little conflicts for a long time. Iraq in 1991, Reaction to USS Cole in 2000, Afghanistan/Iraq in 2001. But my point is again lost because we've been doing this forever it seems. I'm not informed enough to make a point on whether the modern economy needs war to prevent a global depression and negative inflation and all the other 'evils' that would work out by themselves after some pain.<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Wars#2000-_present">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Wars#2000-_present</a>Can anyone comment on if "we need war" to keep the economy going at the current pace/expectation?
Closed AccountOct 17, 2006
That's around $8,000 for every man, woman and child liberated from the brutal Saddam regime. You're right, that's way too much to spend on brown people. It would be better spent buying video game machines for Americans.