How much did the Iraq war actually cost?

The total cost of the Iraq War = 700 billion over 8 years. Not the ridiculous 3 trillion that liberals have been using as a talking point to shield the Democrats and Obama from any blame for our deficits. The Iraq War was not the cause of our economic problems. You can stop using that talking point now.

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11705/08-18-Update.pdf

 

nice that interest on all that borrowed money is not included

 

Didn't read link did you?

 

i'm on dialup, sorry, no youtube, no pdfs

but there's no way that amount includes interest, which we will be paying until the second coming

anyways, even if i was to believe this, it's not like 700 billion dollars isn't $2000 out of every living american's pocket

[that's about 4 months' income for me]

which could have been spent on better things . . .

 

I couldn't get the page to open, so I'll ask if the totals include the following:

• health care for the families of military personnel while they were on active duty.
• medical treatment for the 20,000 + wounded soldiers
• VA benefits for the families of those killed while on duty
• an estimate for the treatment of the disabled and their families for the remainder of their lives
• an estimate for the total VA payments to those disabled for the remainder of their lives, and their families.
• lost tax revenues due to the decrease in salaries of the military personnel and the interest on the borrowed money to make up those losses
• Social benefits for the families of military personnel while on active duty and for the family when they return and cannot find a job
• The nation's lost productivity as a result of this war.
• Money paid to other nations for their support
• Funding for the CIA for their part in all of this
• covert operations by other agencies than the CIA

If I took more time I could probably think of many more extraneous expenditures connected to these wars, but the Veterans expenses alone will be staggering.

.

 

That's only around 300 new Texas stadiums. That's nothin'. I want another 700 billion in bombs over that country. -.-

 

You do not comprehend 700 billion dollars, yes that includes all operations to happen in Iraq and all Military spending, can you tell me more about the covert CIA missions?

 

I actually made money off that war.. still making money.. dont care, dont cares...

 

It cost 3 of my friends their sanity. 700 billion dollars compared to 3 trillion doesn't justify anything for me, sorry. Its still a war fought for greed and nothing else. Its a war that puts soldiers in harm's way unnecessarily, and leaves them dealing with the aftermath for years after the rest of the country forgets. And its a completely pointless war because once we withdraw, the corruption that runs rampant in the political structure of the country is going to cause a complete political collapse. 700 billion dollars doesn't justify any of that.

 

This seems correct, when Afghanistan is thrown onto the number pile too it rises to almost $1.1 trillion, and neither war is done yet. Can you imagine the wondrous things that could've happened if we had spent $1.1 trillion on infrastructure in the past 9 years. Plus those are the direct costs of military operations.

The CBO back in 2007 estimated both wars could wind up costing about two and half trillion by 2017.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2450753720071024

Cost of medical care for wounded soldiers might be anywhere between $200-650 billion
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/2/6/hidden_costs_of_war_long_term

Aside from the human and currency cost, don't forget equipment, over 90 A1 Abrhamas tanks(which cost $6.4 million each), a lot of helicopters and aircraft, and god knows how many armored vehicles since roadside bombs have become the norm.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/04/AR2006120401347.html
The cost of repairing equipment was at $17 billion a year in itself.

 

:dupe:

The cost is incalculable. We went there based on a lie and a desire for personal vengeance (Sadam tried to kill George W. Bush's father, the first President Bush).

This was an unnecessary war that flushed 225+ years of gorgeous American history where we had never started a war of aggression - there had always been a clear mandate or someone had specifically asked us for help. Sure you can argue various police actions and gorilla events, but the big wars . . . we flushed that proud history. How can you put a price on that?

How can you put a price on a human life? All those lives lost for lies, for nothing. Those people didn't want us. It was up to them to revolt and change. The neocons were so positive that we were wanted and needed and that democracy would magically spread through the region. wtf? And bringing our young dead boys and girls home in the dead of night . . . again flushing our proud and unique history . . . pricetag anyone?



When will we ever get out? When? If we fully pull out now or anytime soon we are left in a position of even greater evil than we now seem to enjoy. So the costs are once again, incalculable as well as ongoing. We are still in Germany and South Korea.

We went to Iraq and TOOK OUR EYES OFF THE PRIZE! Afghanistan and the Taliban. And where are we today with that theater and those folks, eh? Seriously, right after 9/11, we should have thrown EVERYTHING we had (MILLIONS OF TROOPS) into Afghanistan and fucking steamrolled over that country including all the caves (Yes, i know of a 9/11 death, just as many of you do.). How can you put a price on this? We have betrayed the victims of 9/11! . . . :ack2:

We and world history will be REELING from this for decades if not centuries to come. Go ahead, place a price on this mess . . . have fun with that. We will continue to pay and pay and pay. And when we are dead and gone, our grandchildren will continue to pay and pay and pay, financially, historically, in terms of world esteem (or lack thereof) and countless other ways.

And, i honestly suspect, that because we took our eyes off the prize, we are in for another round of nightmarish domestic located terrorism soon. Don't forget that 8 years separated the first attempt to take down the World Trade Centers and the second, successful attempt. Prices anyone?

Hisses, Nothing but Hisses,
Spicey Cat

 

• 
  
  A bit off topic, but I see veterans collecting money on the side of the road all the time, much like charities who stand on the side of the road and collect money. If veterans were provided with adequate care, they would not need to do this. I know a couple of Iraq war veterans who were denied certain medical benefits that they needed once they returned from Iraq. Imagine the costs if the government did their job and actually adequately provided for the veterans. They're cutting costs somewhere in terms of veteran benefits, and yet the costs are still staggering.
  
  
  Instead our infrastructure is falling apart and we've gained nothing from this war. A few contractors have gotten rich, but as far as I can see they're the only ones that have benefited. I fail to understand how some people can still support this war but vehemently protest against universal healthcare, which would cost less than 700 billion or 1.2 trillion or 3 trillion and would benefit the millions of people in this country suffering from lack of healthcare. The logic of this line of thinking astounds me.

 

Since this thread has become awash in misinformed and openly ignorant opinions stating that apparently there was zero reason to remove Saddam Hussein from power I decided a recap on post war Iraq was in order.

Everyone who stated that the war was based on lies read closely I present to you:

The War Crimes of Saddam Hussein

Political Oppression:

Hussein openly idolized the former Soviet premier Joseph Stalin, a man notable as much for his paranoia-induced execution sprees as anything else. In July 1978, he had his government issue a memorandum decreeing that anyone whose ideas came into conflict with those of the Baath Party leadership would be subject to summary execution. Most, but certainly not all, of Hussein's targets were ethnic Kurds and Shiite Muslims.

Sounds fun, I guess we should have just let by gones be by gones according to some of the posts in this thread, moving onto...

Ethnic Cleansing:

The two dominant ethnicities of Iraq have traditionally been Arabs in south and central Iraq, and Kurds in the north and northeast, particularly along the Iranian border. Hussein long viewed ethnic Kurds as a long-term threat to Iraq's survival, and the oppression and extermination of the Kurds was one of his administration's highest priorities.

Oh well I guess the forums opinion on the Kurds can be summed up as "fuck em"

Now that the attempted genocide has been overlooked lets quickly continue onto...

The Dujail Massacre of 1982:

In July of 1982, several Shiite militants attempted to assassinate Saddam Hussein while he was riding through the city. Hussein responded by ordering the slaughter of some 148 residents, including dozens of children. This is the only war crime on which Hussein has been charged, and he will almost certainly be executed before any other charges go to trial.

Well the apprehension of Saddam Hussein for this crime has indeed happened but not without the kicking and screaming of every red faced liberal in the United States attempting to bog the process down for misguided reasons, but hey what else are liberals good for? Moving right along into...

The Campaign Against the Marsh Arabs:

Hussein did not limit his genocide to identifiably Kurdish groups; he also targeted the predominantly Shiite Marsh Arabs of southeastern Iraq, the direct descendants of the ancient Mesopotamians. By destroying more than 95% of the region's marshes, he effectively depleted its food supply and destroyed the entire millennia-old culture, reducing the number of Marsh Arabs from 250,000 to approximately 30,000. It is unknown how much of this population drop can be attributed to direct starvation and how much to migration, but the human cost was unquestionably high.

I heard in another post that the "human cost" was incalculable I would have to agree...

However, lets not forget,

The Post-Uprising Massacres of 1991:

In the aftermath of Operation Desert Storm, the United States encouraged Kurds and Shiites to rebel against Hussein's regime--then withdrew and refused to support them, leaving an unknown number to be slaughtered. At one point, Hussein's regime killed as many as 2,000 suspected Kurdish rebels every day. Some two million Kurds hazarded the dangerous trek through the mountains to Iran and Turkey, hundreds of thousands dying in the process.

Well it's good to know that the liberals got the go ahead to abandon our Kurdish and Shiite brothers and sisters to the slaughter all those moons ago, and if that was not enough even after over a decade of slaughter still attempt to say that the moral action is to leave the country and it's one time genocidal crime family to it's own devices, such humanitarians the far left must be.

More on the actions of Saddam can be read here,

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/internationalhumanrights/p/saddam_hussein.htm

 

and they wouldnt need to grow their own weed and sell all their Oxycottins eithers.. well thats just me..

 

We're all well aware of the crimes that Saddam committed. There are dictators all over the world committing similiar atrocities. The United States does not enter into war for unselfish reasons. We've overthrown other governments in the past as well, and these coups were not done for liberation or other unselfish purposes. Anytime the United States takes on the responsibility of toppling another nation's government, we do so because there is some kind of self interest to be served. You would have to be really naive to think otherwise. And even if we did go to Iraq for purely unselfish reasons, we do not have the right to pick and choose the governments across the world that have a right to exist. That is the responsibility of the United Nations, not the USA, and the U.N did not support our invasion of Iraq.

Plus, look at the most current date: The Post-Uprising Massecres of 1991. We declared war in 2003. If we truly wanted to liberate the Iraqi citizens, we would have done so much earlier than 2003. The truth is, the US benefited in some way from this war (although I really am unclear on the particular benefit) and our government used 9/11 as an excuse to manipulate public opinion into supporting an unjust war.

Take, for example, the Congo in the 50s. A socialist leader was elected, ELECTED, by a majority vote. He wanted to take Congo's wealth of natural resources (namely, diamonds) and use them to benefit his countrymen. The United States had been dipping their fingers into the diamond trade for many years during the Belgium occupation of the Congo, and so they staged a coup and installed a dictator who acted as a puppet for the United States, thus ensuring that greedy white men once again became rich by stealing resources from poor black people. This is not just my opinion; this can all be confirmed by searching through declassified CIA documents from the time period.

Moral of the story? The United States government does not do anything that is not ultimately self-serving. To assume otherwise seems rather naive to me.

 

haha I know a veteran that was told by the government he would have to pass a piss test in order to keep receiving his oxycontins. He basically told them to take their oxycontins and shove them, and now he just smokes weed for pain management. Its a lot healthier than oxycontins any day!

 

This is a thread about money which means nothing.

One life lost, the cost was too high.

 

The thing is if we base who we're going to invade on human rights abuses, Saddam wasn't anywhere near the top of the list. We went in based on the threat of WMDs. However what people forget is hindsight is 20/20, prior to the invasion and the eventual discovery that there were in fact no WMDs, at least of any large production value, people have conveniently forgot the fact that a lot of people believed Saddam was trying to rearm. Even countries opposed to the war from the start didn't discount the fact Saddam was probably trying to make WMDs, but wanted more time for UN negotiations. It's just 7 years later it's easy to yell "oil!" and "revenge!", but really it just shows a lack of pragmatic politics. There were legitimate reasons to invade Iraq that nations and intelligences agencies around the world agreed with even if they were against an actual invasion.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/18/AR2010081805644.html

Welcome to last week.

 

lol, that's like when Bush said "Mission Accomplished", there's still over 50,000 troops in Iraq. Today there were mass bombings across the country. The idea of non combat troops in a combat area is hilarious. 50,000 troops on the other side of the world in a country racked by attacks take a lot of money and material to support and more troops shall die. Welcome to this week:
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/08/20/us_combat_troops_have_not_left_iraq
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/08/24/iraq_next_stop_lebanon