Posted on 08/05/2007 11:27:15 PM PDT by John Farson
WASHINGTON -- The war in Iraq could ultimately cost well over a trillion dollars -- at least double what has already been spent -- including the long-term costs of replacing damaged equipment, caring for wounded troops, and aiding the Iraqi government, according to a new government analysis.
[...] Some leading economists have predicted that, depending on how long troops remain in Iraq, the endeavor could reach several trillion dollars as a result of more "hidden" costs -- including recruiting expenses to replenish the ranks and the lifelong benefits the government pays to veterans.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
;o)
freedom is not free.
That has possibilities. We could sell to sponsors. Rename it the Haliburton Iraq Bowl. Sell ads on the sides of Strykers. Maybe paint messages on bombs: This boom brought to you by _________. Possibilities are endless.
No. Isn't it understood that the "warrantless wiretap" program revealed by the New York Times in late 1995 (after the White House pressured their editors to keep it out of the paper for over a year) was not the usual wiretap as used by the FBI but rather a "traffic analysis" tool for connecting the dots so domestic numbers could be isolated as possibly terrorist-related? I believe that was the function.
I'm more concerned with "Know Your Customer" programs, an abortive attempt early on to draw the Post Office into the spy business, and new banking regulations to report fund transfers in ever-smaller amounts to federal authorities. The potential for abuse is enormous, and not just because of busybodies with too much time on their hands and a government computer on their desks.
It's that a whole bunch of amateur sleuths, some with an ax to grind, some doing their sleuthing anonymously (on the Internet, even) can gum up the works for legitimate law-enforcement personnel. Chasing down spurious leads is a time-consuming effort which benefits no one. Terrorists, if they were so inclined, could overwhelm the resources of the FBI, local police and even portions of the military with the unwitting cooperation of Americans who "think" they are protecting their country.
As with the War on Drugs, as with the attempts to bring, first, democracy, then stability to Iraq, innocents can be caught up in a web not of their making. When you file a complaint against your neighbor for, say, having a dog that keeps you awake at night barking, the police will want some kind of proof that it's their dog doing the barking and not someone else's. They can't simply take your word for it.
Even if the police investigate and conclude it's the neighbor's dog that's barking, the neighbor is entitled to his day in court.
Making a charge of terrorism, or aiding terrorists, or helping finance terrorist acts, is a much more serious accusation than a barking dog complaint. How many have been made since 9/11? I don't know. I suspect many, many more than the few incidents we have seen in the news, such as the recent discovery of explosives in someone's car trunk.
What about the duds, the false alarms, the white powder that was only talcum, the ratting out of rivals, the cases of mistaken identify of which there are many?
A free country cannot accept as little as a 1% error rate when the lives and livelihood of its citizens are in jeopardy. That's one in a hundred falsely accused, falsely imprisoned, falsely executed. Do you honestly believe that's what it is in Iraq? Would you want that here?
Here's a false dichotomy. See if you agree.
Better that an innocent man go to prison than a terrorist get away with blowing up a [building] [train] [bridge] [city].Not an easy choice, is it?
That's because it's a false dichotomy.
Keep watching the Presidential debates. You'll see more.
Too late to go to sleep, too early to wake up.
I, too, will take this up tomorrow morning. What you seem to be missing, however, is the notion of “lawful combatant”.
Constitutional due process is not due to ANY foreign national, particularly those not fighting for a state.
You’re trying to attack this from a civil liberties angle, when we actually have an arguably-unnecessary check and balance in place (FISA).
I’ll be here if you will. Sleep well.
How does that compare to the costs (and failure) of the "War on Poverty?"
There was a study done by a nationally recognized economic consulting firm and published in the NY Post that estimated the cost to the national economy of the USA from the 9/11 attack was $639,300,000,000, plus 2 million lost jobs.
And that says nothing about the 3000 lives snuffed out in a matter of two or three hours.
Personally, I would rather spend the money being proactive, fighting back and making their miserable rat-like lives as difficult and uncomfortable as possible, than spending it on clean up of destroyed buildings, lost lives, lost jobs and broken families.
How much would a nuclear bomb in midtown Manhattan cost?
Hardly, but it is another sign of W's incompetence. I believe the initial estimate was $40 to $60 billion. We should have gone in with overwhelming force and seized control at the very beginning.
With the exception of "his administration's bungled immigration proposals", it appears the answer would be yes.
The verbiage you used seems to be lifted directly from the liberal's style book.
“I figure he took a few junior college classes on appliance repair and now believe he’s an, “honest to goodness college scholar” ... (cue the Appalachian hillbilly accent)”
Many scholars never leave their ivy coated halls and still think they understand the world.
I for one would trust someone from the Appalachians before some honest to goodness college scholar.
Iraq didn’t have nukes. Iraq was peripheral to protecting the U.S. from terrorism.
Not Fighting the War Could Cost Us Western Civilization
(alternate headline)
LLS
Why does Bush need to spy on Americans to fight terrorists?
Why do you trust government to use power responsibly?
Would you trust Hillary with these powers?
What is the effect of “entitlements”?
R. Paul supporters I have spoken to face to face also believe the planes that went into the WTC were remote control and other wacko beliefs. L Ron Paul is totally unstablePerhaps L Ron isn't unstable himself, but something about him attracts the unstable types you describe. Something about him definitely appeals to the mentally unbalanced, much like the other L Ron.
“Hardly, but it is another sign of W’s incompetence. I believe the initial estimate was $40 to $60 billion. We should have gone in with overwhelming force and seized control at the very beginning.”
Yeah right. The initial estimate was never 40-60 billion. We did go in with overwhelming force and still have it there. What we don’t have is the political will to use that force.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.