*DAMN R6 Forum

http://costofwar.com (http://costofwar.com)

"The War in Iraq Cost the United States $119,310,852,739
Instead, we could have ensured that every child in the world was given basic immunizations for 39 years or we could have hired 2,272,679 additional public school teachers for one year."

That really is sad.

Nobody ever said war is cheap.  Where were you liberals when Franklin D. Roosevelt was waging an unjust war against the peaceful Nazis in Europe?  That little war cost Billions of Dollars, too.  And they didn't even attack us, the Japanese did.  But then again, if you guys were around during WWII, I'm sure you would have been against war with Japan, too.  On the grounds that they only attacked one of our TERRITORIES, and all.[/size]

GS don't be such a fucking asshole. There is a big difference between what's happening then and now. And as much as it pains you to admit it, the greater good doesn't apply to a harmless country that has no threat or weapons.

First, I was not born yet, and neither were the vast majority of people on this forum. Second, any comparison with WWII and the modern day War against Islamic fundamentalism is idiotic. Third, WWII was a war with defined nation states not dispersed terrorist cells. Finally, WWII expanded the U.S. economy and helped propel it to superpower status, whereas the War in Iraq has expanded the bank accounts of corporate crooks and flushed our respected world standing down the shit tubes, at the same time bankrupting the American tax payer for multiple generations to come.

I didn't see any Iraqis fly planes into the world trade center ... did you?

I think we're letting ourselves get caught up in tieing the fight against world terrorism with the war in Iraq. They're two unrelated conflicts, one of which has sucked in all the men and treasure needed to fight the other.

So, once more: I'm a hawk on fighting terrorism. I want us out of Iraq. Cause I think units like the Marine's First Recon should be chasing al Queda, Osama, and butchering terrorists, not Iraqi nationalists.

I don't believe Bush was planning on attacking Iraq, but he could'nt find Osama so he had to move on. Who better than the same man who who his father hates? Saddam. I agree sixhits, we should be going after terrorists and not Iraqi nationalists. I liked the law that was brought to the congress a long while back . . . everybody who votes in favor of war is sent to war, they can fight the war in which they want to be fought. waste of money.

you're really losing it man. iraq is sucking up the money here, there's no correlation between iraq and the terrorist attacks. for fucks sake man do you even know whats going on in this world?

Wtf that is a lot of money that keeps piling up. Like $1000 every 1/2 seconds. Wow.

EDIT: This really pops my eye out:

"Instead, we could have fully funded global  anti-hunger efforts for 4 years."

Just to nitpick a bit, war on Iraq != war on Islamic fundamentalism. Iraq is/was probably the most secular Islamic nation in the region.

We all know it's a waste of money, but the administration never will give a damn. Wait and see what happens after the power hand-over. I have a feeling there are still a few bad guys hanging around.

i also have a feeling america is going to crash and burn if they allow another lying piece of garbage like bush into office. then again, how much worse could it get?

Oooohhh, Ooooohhh :o
I wanna nitpick too...

GS,
I've mentioned this before, but you i guess you didn't get it. GERMANY DECLARED WAR ON THE US AFTER PEARL HARBOR!!! That's why the US entered WW2 in Europe and that's why we fought Hitler.

Ace,
I woul'dnt say Saddam's regime was teh most secular in the middle east, especially in its latter incarnation. Saddam was actively courting the religious establishment in order to give himself an air of legitimacy, building mosques in his name and stuff. Syria is much more militantly secular, as was Turkey before the last elections, than Saddam was before the invasion.

The money spent sofar on Iraq could have been used for a lot of great things. Most of all, it could have been used to quickly get the Iraqi petrolium industry running effeciently and modernized and allowing the Interim government to use the revenue to rebuild the country, rather than stuffing the pockets of Halliburton management. It could have been spent on building fair and representative institutions immediatly after Saddam's overthrow and allowing all Iraqis to participate, instead of having Capt. Kangaroo run the country for a couple of months and then hand it over to a state department bureaucrat, who knows nothing about Iraq. Maybe if we had spent all that money on that kinda stuff instead, the whole thing would be a lot cheaper because the rest of the world wouldnt think we are morons and be more willing to help out.

Abe,

I have a BA in History.  I will soon have a Masters in History.  I think I know the ins and outs of WWII.  I was attempting to be sarcastic in my post.  But then, you are too stupid to see that.

Peace.

-GhostSniper Out.[/size]

Yah, when someone doesn't get my jokes, I blame them. 'Cause I'm super-witty...

:-P

So GS, you do admit how much money has been wasted in Iraq. That's not what's important though. There are hundreds of soldiers getting killed due to a war that wasn't necessary. When you think about it where was the threat from the Iraqi Regime. Sure they were bad guys, but they weren't a immediate threat. There was no terrorist connection.  Enough is enough. Just admit that much.

Bahhahahahahahaa....
And i've got a PhD in Go Fuck Yourself, dickhead!
Your sacrcasm was duly noted (haha), but you've made those remarks in a non-sacrastic way in the past, so I think you do believe America declared war on Germany, not the other way around.
Peace sucker...

I really don't think it's tasteful to be sarcastic about something like that. If you've been taught your history by the bias GS, you will be bias.

After  911 and Afghanistan, Bush plainly wanted to head Islamic Fundamentalism off at the pass.  Since, as noted, Islamic Fundamentalism is not a nation it is difficult to attack directly.  It seems to me that Bush's goal in attacking Iraq was simply to destablize the Islamic world by driving a wedge, politically and geographically, into the heart of the region.  Wiping out his father's nemisis was a bonus.

The cost of this war may be less than the cost of continued Fundamentalist growth and future actions required.  It is probably hard to justify the $ and human life costs of any war.

While I do not support this war, I do see a kind of (warped) logic to it.