Wars Cost $15 Billion a Month, GOP Senator Says

Washington Post ^ | Thursday, December 27, 2007 | Walter Pincus

[jrooney]

;) CC has been exposed for his/her agenda.

[Mr. Silverback]

And Texas wild shrimp.

And theater renovations.

[jrooney]

And to move sunken ships.

[canuck_conservative]

(1) I don’t have a strategy for micro-managing the hunt for OBL, and that wasn’t the point of the post, just wanted to make people aware of the money amounts involved.

(2) THIS is the debate I want to see - how effective is the WOT? What yardsticks do you use to measure it? Certainly the failure to get OBL after all that time/money raises questions.

(3) the US Military creates world wealth? Don’t know about that one. Bit hypothetical anyway, isn’t it?

[El Gato]

How much would rebuilding NY, LA, DC, Dallas-Ft.Worth, or any number of other cities, destroyed by a nuke, or even just contaminated by a dirty bomb, cost? Hmm?

[canuck_conservative]

Why you ‘rassling me?

Ask the Administration that wants to leave the southern border wide open.

[JmyBryan]

I think the WOT is being consistently debated, both inside and outside the government. Certainly it should be. I cannot fathom how it could be fought ‘on the cheap’.

Economic surpluses are only generated when accompanied by stability, ie the expectation that the future is somewhat predictable. The biggest factor enforcing that stability on the planet today is the US Military.

The previous statement is a gross simplification of the hows and whys of world economic activity, but nonetheless the US and its accompanying military are the foremost influences on the vibrancy of the current economic regime.

[El Gato]

At $180 billion every year, how long before the US goes effectively bankrupt?

As you can see in the post above, 180 Billion is chicken feed compared to just the "entitlements" in the US budget. It's also only about 1/4 of the total DoD budget, including the special war funding.

Of course Congress only appropriated about $70 B so far this fiscal year, not $180B

The DoD and the WoT budgets are not the problem.

[Mr. Silverback]

And anyone objective would have to conclude that you have a problem with a debate about spending

We have a saying down here in the States: "Millions for defense, but not a penny for tribute."

Don't you worry your head about how much it costs for us to kill the most evil scum on the planet, we're quite willing to pay for it.

[Mr. Silverback]

Compare GDP percentage to GDP percentage. Not even close. Each American family probably would rather have $130/month than have us in Iraq (again, Afghanistan is minor compared to Iraq). Ask an average American if he'd rather have us in Iraq or get a check for $10,000 for his family, and I think most would choose the latter.

I would choose the former. Ten grand won't do me any good if I'm dead, or the economy is shot because Chicago got nuked.

[Mr. Silverback]

Some of it is mine.

Well good. It appears the price of surrender for you is about ten grand. I wonder how much of it you'll get to keep after paying jizyah.

[Mr. Silverback]

Ron Paul called Reagan a Dramatic Failure

Got a cite for that? I would love to have that available for the Paul threads...like shooting crazy fish in a barrel.

[Mr. Silverback]

How's your anti-conservative, big-government shilling going?

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

[Mr. Silverback]

Would you take your family for a vacation in Iraq?

That's actually not a question I can answer fairly, since the list of foreign countries I'd take my family to on vacation is very, very short and probably wouldn't include Iraq if there was no violence. For example, my family could walk the streets safely in Saudi Arabia, but I'm not taking them there.

That said, the antiwar crowd gets proved wrong over and over again in regards to the surge, and they keep moving the goal. Once the streets are 100% safe, you'll come up with some other goal we haven't hit. Meanwhile, most of Iraq is safer than parts of Washington DC.

[Mr. Silverback]

Why you ‘rassling me? Ask the Administration that wants to leave the southern border wide open.

And so we have the constantly recycled tripe from anti-war "conservatives." It doesn't matter how viciously we have dismantled Al Qaida's networks, how many of them we have killed or captured, how many plots we've broken up, how many lives we've saved, how many of their allies we've cowed, hung or blasted, how many thousands of days have passed without an attack on U.S. soil. No, all that matters is immigration, and for some reason, if you support the war they think they get to assume you're OK with a porous border.

[Mr. Silverback]

BTW, check out the question in post 57. You might as well respond to out while you’re worrying about how much money it takes to kill terrorists.

[Mr. Silverback]

BTW, check out the question in post 57. You might as well respond to it while you’re worrying about how much money it takes to kill terrorists.

[billybudd]

Not sure what one has to do with the other.

[billybudd]

By that standard, we should have already concluded the Iraq War since it has been 4 years already.

[fortheDeclaration]

Believe it or not, I like the US. And I want it to survive and stay strong for the long-term. But there are a number of things that currently threaten that - including overspending - and should be debated. Blank cheques, with no accountability, are dangerous.

I guess there are some people who think that it is impossible for the United States to go bankrupt.

Something the terrorists would love to see happen!