11-03-2005 00:42									#1
	$81 billion more for Iraq. Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I recall a previous thread a week or two ago where a certain someone who shall not be named claimed Iraq was only costing %50 billion per year. At the time numerous sources were sited that in the 24 months since the war started any where from $300 billion to $150 billion, depending upon what you consider an Iraq expense verses a regular military expense verses an Afghanistan expense, had been spent on Iraq but now we are about to add $81 billion more to that total.

That means that since the war started in March of 2003 the total costs associated with it are between $231 billion to $381 billion (depending upon issues already mentioned) so the conservative estimate of cost is now $231 billion/2 or slightly more then $115 billion dollar per year. Does a certain someone wish to retract the claim that it "only" costs $50 billion per year?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS...g.ap/index.html

	11-03-2005 00:48									#2
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

OHHHH, a vindictive thread..gets out the popcorn...

About a month ago Stewart had a clip of the head of US AID I think, before the war began, telling the interviewer that when things were over, the war would only have cost the US 3 Billion......everyone remember how Iraq was going to be able to pay it all with its wonderful oil revenue? And yet somehow, with oil at 52 bucks a barrel, the money is hemmoraging in.

	11-03-2005 01:00									#3
	Increase Your PM Length

BTW this total doesn't include the amount of debt relief Iraq has recieved which was in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Also oil production was cut in half due to the war, recovered to about 75%-80% then started going down again due to sabotage and 40 neglected 40 year old equipment breaking. Iraq can hardly pay for basic needs and modernization and the war effort.

Saddam, like any good Arab dictator, nationalized every business in the country worth anything because business owners tend to complain when you tax their businesses out of existance. That means there really is nothing else Iraq exports other then oil. If they spent hundreds of billions on new pipelines, holding facilities, and liquification plants they might be able to start exporting some of their natural gas but this isn't possible right now. So basically the entire national economy lives or dies based upon oil output and lately that's been going down, down, down.

	11-03-2005 01:12									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

commie oerdin

democracy in mideast... priceless

	11-03-2005 01:15									#5
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

wow that's a lot of money

	11-03-2005 01:23									#6
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Wow, sooner or later that's going to add up to some real money!

	11-03-2005 02:13									#7
	Inflate your Upload Space

I bet China was screaming "Four more years!" last November

	11-03-2005 03:12									#8
	Put an end to popups!

We invaded Iraq, and are now responsible for rebuilding it. We need to spend whatever it takes.

	11-03-2005 03:16									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Shi: Well said

I didn't agree with the invasion and I feel vindicated, but that one should tie up ones own loose ends transcends for or against the war. Though of course, the US going cap in hand to the EU is rather amusing

	11-03-2005 03:32									#10
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Do we have to go through the math again? $81 billion is being appropriated for this fiscal year through September '05. The war spending started well before the war began. So the denominator is 3 years (October '02 - September '05).

Further, that $81 billion includes Afghanistan, some foreign policy giveaways, State Department construction funds, military restructuring, and a whole host of miscellaneous stuff not strictly related to Iraq.

I'm not going to post in this thread further because this has been explained to you once before. Understanding the math is not beyond your capabilities, as far as I know.

	11-03-2005 03:34									#11
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by DanS Do we have to go through the math again? $81 is being appropriated for this fiscal year through September '05. The war spending started well before the war began. So the denominator is 3 years (October '02 - September '05). Further, that $81 billion includes Afghanistan, some foreign policy giveaways, State Department construction funds, military restructuring, and a whole host of miscellaneous stuff not strictly related to Iraq. I'm not going to post in this thread further because this has been explained to you once before. Understanding the math is not beyond your capabilities, as far as I know.

PWNED!

	11-03-2005 03:35									#12
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

But it still comes down to a great deal of expenditure directly related to the invasion of Iraq, or at least the latter is eating most of the money no?

	11-03-2005 03:37									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Whaleboy But it still comes down to a great deal of expenditure directly related to the invasion of Iraq, or at least the latter is eating most of the money no?

Lets look at the basics of everything.. do you want to see Iraq get off on the right foot? Whether you like it or not, spending money to help rebuild the country is the only way to go. I think it is important as the developed world that we care about Iraqis and Afghanis.. pitching in. Of course the US always flips most of the bill..

	11-03-2005 03:40									#14
	Inflate your Upload Space

I'm not saying they shouldn't, I just find the financial side interesting and hopefully prohibitive to any future adventures. Iraq needs rebuilding and it would be unwise for US+UK troops to leave before Iraq can handle itself, democratic or otherwise. I'm opposed to the US, UK or other nations initially involved asking others to foot part of the bill because irrespective of the rights and wrongs it's their responsibility.

EDIT: Comma overload

	11-03-2005 03:42									#15
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Whaleboy I'm not saying they shouldn't, I just find the financial side interesting, and hopefully prohibitive to any future adventures. Iraq needs rebuilding and it would be unwise for US+UK troops to leave before Iraq can handle itself, democratic or otherwise. I'm opposed to the US, UK, or other nations initially involved asking others to foot part of the bill, because irrespective of the rights and wrongs, it's their responsibility.

Well it is very expensive and we are just going to have to flip the bill one way or the other. Of course the United States is flipping most of the bill.. I would like to request that nations that didn't participate in the war or that were even against it help.. out of the kindness of their hearts and only think about the Iraqi people. Even if you are against the Iraq war, would you as a person help support the Iraqi people in some form like a charity of some sort?

	11-03-2005 03:43									#16
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I hardly see the passion for democracy etc in the eyes of Iraqi people to be so strong they would be willing to continue without any advancements. Since the rebels and terrorists are not going to stop, the only way to make them stop or seem as not so important is to make the people 'take the power'. But let's not forget they are not reading freedom+liberty=happiness books in there every night. They need concrete. Something that makes it even remotely possible. That means rebuilding of the infrastructure, establishing some vital places etcetcetc. Without that, there is no start. That is the start, the real concrete start people can see. It still doesn't guarantee anything, but not doing it guarantees a failure. It's really a tough situation now, there are many things that needs to be succesful, and so many things that can go wrong and **** it up. THis is one of those things that needs to go right, and maybe there still is a chance, maybe. Without it, no chance in hell.

Of course it's a crap loads of money. I will buy two big coca cola bottles tomorrow to chip in! hooray for me.

	11-03-2005 03:46									#17
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: would you as a person help support the Iraqi people in some form like a charity of some sort?

Indeed, charity is fine. Also, if previously uninvolved nations seek to pay, then good on them. I look at it as a man who as incurred some debt. It is rude and inconsiderate of him to ask others to help pay his debt, if others choose to help out of charity (either organisational charities or governmental handouts) then that's good for them, but they are under no obligation or moral imperative to do so.

	11-03-2005 23:36									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by DanS The war spending started well before the war began. So the denominator is 3 years (October '02 - September '05).

No dice. War spending as added only counts once shooting started. If you want to include the build up then I'll have to add more money to the total in order to cover that period. You are right the current total does include Afghanistan but that's because Bush continues to insist that Iraq is somehow related to fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban thus they refuse to account for it seporately.

In any event Iraq is 90%+ of the total so the amount is well above your $50 billion per year total. By your own admission they're spending $81 billion this year and that is just the first billion. Bush loves to stretch things out into three or four bills so it doesn't look as big as it really is.

	11-03-2005 23:38									#19
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Whaleboy But it still comes down to a great deal of expenditure directly related to the invasion of Iraq, or at least the latter is eating most of the money no?

Iraq sucks up the vast majority of the funds since it is much, much larger of a war then Afghanistan. I'd love to have Iraq only figures but Bush has repeatedly refused to account just for Iraq and he continues to pretend that Iraq had something to do with Al Qaeda. I believe he's just afraid to show how much more he's spent going after Saddam compared to how little we've spent going after Al Qaeda.

	11-03-2005 23:39									#20
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by DanS I'm not going to post in this thread further because this has been explained to you once before. Understanding the math is not beyond your capabilities, as far as I know.

You can't do it can you? You just can't admite that the war costs a hell of a lot more then $50 billion per year.

	12-03-2005 17:56									#21
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Giancarlo Well it is very expensive and we are just going to have to flip the bill one way or the other. Of course the United States is flipping most of the bill.. I would like to request that nations that didn't participate in the war or that were even against it help.. out of the kindness of their hearts and only think about the Iraqi people. Even if you are against the Iraq war, would you as a person help support the Iraqi people in some form like a charity of some sort?

Personally, no. The way I see it, the money will be paid somehow or other, either by the US/UK alone, or by those plus other nations. The US and UK got into this mess, and if I were in another nation, I'd be strongly against my government pledging any money, as it's a simple case of either they spend money, or the US/UK spends money, and when it's their fault, I think they should pay.

As Whaleboy said, I see it like a loan. The US acted against the EU in going to war, and so should foot the bill for their actions. While I'd love to see the EU pitching in, morally I feel they're completely justified in not, and if I lived inthe non-UK EU, I'd be strongly against it.

	12-03-2005 18:00									#22
	Tired of ads?

We should never have got involved in the whole sordid business either...despite lack of popular support for the war, Blair went ahead and did it anyway.

	12-03-2005 18:07									#23
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Some good things have come out of it but the down side to not trying harder to win broad based support is the bill is coming due and there aren't to many people quing up to share the tab.

I just wish Dan could admit it costs more then $50 billion per year.

	12-03-2005 20:17									#24
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

It would be nice when democracy makes big, expensive mistakes that some are opposed to, that those "some" should have the option of not paying their taxes that would have been wasted on that mistake.

Needless to say, that also falls foul of the democracy fallacy. This system so completely sucks .

	12-03-2005 20:20									#25
	Put an end to popups!

quote: I just wish Dan could admit it costs more then $50 billion per year.

Wouldn't that be enough to have a free prescription service for all US Citizens?

	12-03-2005 20:50									#26
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

No. Medicaid costs more than that.

	12-03-2005 21:24									#27
	Increase Your PM Length

The US budget is around $2.4 trillion, and while it would make a sizeable difference, adding $50 billion to the $580 bn department of health budget wouldn't have the massive effect of free prescriptions, or anything resembling the NHS.

	12-03-2005 22:29									#28
	Increase Your PM Length

Fair enough. However, how much does the US spend on its military, and how much would be required for free prescriptions?

	12-03-2005 22:56									#29
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The US spends ~$480 bn on defense, most of which I presume is spent on the military. Free prescriptions is something I'm not sure is needed, since seeing the doctor costs in the first place. Free healthcare probably wouldn't cost much more that the US currently pays, as in the UK we spend £81 bn on the NHS, which is around £1200 per capita. The US has just under 300 million inhabitants, and so presuming costs of around $2200 per capita, a UK style NHS would cost the US around $660 bn per year. So an extra $80 bn per year would be enough to have free healthcare for all in the US.

However this leaves out the big problem of pay. Doctor's and nurse's pay in the US is vastly higher than it is in the UK, partly due to the higher costs of the education required to do the job. Thus costs would likely be quite significantly higher.