And how long did we occupy them and help them rebuild afterward?-The length of the war in iraq.
-The length of time it took to win a global war against Nazi German, Fascist Italy, and the european axis powers in WWII.
And how long did we occupy them and help them rebuild afterward?
1) Germany attacked us. Iraq didn't
2) We spent less money rebuiling germany, than we've spent on iraq.
3) There was no guerilla war in Germany after 1945.
1. Yes, but the comparison is arbitrary. It is the long-term occupation that is so costly. Rebuilding Germany was also costly.1) Germany attacked us. Iraq didn't
2) We spent less money rebuiling germany, than we've spent on iraq.
3) There was no guerilla war in Germany after 1945.
I would like to know how that compares in today's dollars. I don't know how they would compare but it might be interesting to figure that out.
Immie
1. Yes, but the comparison is arbitrary. It is the long-term occupation that is so costly. Rebuilding Germany was also costly.
2. On that per-capita and adjusted for inflation basis, this is not reality.
3. Right, we actually waged war on the population of Germany, they were entirely defeated when it was over. In this case we PR'd ourselves into not fighting a war on the population, they are not defeated in spirit as the Germans were and therefore are willing to fight this type of battle....
Simply comparing them over time....
In lives, how many were lost in the same amount of time in Germany? That is what it costs to fight so "cheaply"!
That is only the cost of the US, not all of the money spent in rebuilding. But I guess you are using that as the basis of cost. I use lives as the basis of cost. Lives cost far more than money... This war has been less costly than Germany. And the Marshal plan was only the rebuilding, not the war. How much did we spend on that war?wikkipedia says the Marshal plan cost $120 billion in today's dollars. And that is the total spend on ALL european countries, not just Germany.
In comparisan, Iraq is a relatively small country, with 23 million people. Not an entire continent (i.e., western europe) with hundreds of millions.
That is only the cost of the US, not all of the money spent in rebuilding. But I guess you are using that as the basis of cost. I use lives as the basis of cost. Lives cost far more than money... This war has been less costly than Germany. And the Marshal plan was only the rebuilding, not the war. How much did we spend on that war?
Yes, but you compare the rebuilding cost and say Iraq is more expensive... The cost of making the rebuilding effort so cheap was the amount we spent on the war. Imagine if we used that type of warfare in Iraq... What would it be like if we spent that kind of money on that war? Would anybody at all be alive there?That war cost something like 2 trillion.
World War Two was a justified war. Iraq wasn't. I don't spend money on stuff thats not justied.
But, I understand the desire to try to link Bush's War, to Truman and World War Two. World War two and the Marshall Plan were arguably the most successful and glorified experiments in American foreign Policy. I'd want to try to be linked to them.
wikkipedia says the Marshal plan cost $120 billion in today's dollars. And that is the total spend on ALL european countries, not just Germany.
In comparisan, Iraq is a relatively small country, with 23 million people. Not an entire continent (i.e., western europe) with hundreds of millions.
-The length of the war in iraq.
-The length of time it took to win a global war against Nazi German, Fascist Italy, and the european axis powers in WWII.
I didn't say they lied. However, when anyone in the world can post information in an encyclopedia you cannot expect it to be accurate. I mean I could post that Saddam Hussein was not involved in the murder of his own people. We all know that to be false but I could still post that lie and have it in Wikipedia for God knows how long.
Immie