Cost of the War in Iraq as of 7 minutes ago $315,933,456,984! Is this the best possible use we could have maqde of this money? Or could we could have spent it more constructively than in a successful effort to kill 2,700 Americans and wound many for life, 50,000 more. Is this a wise inventment of taxpaer funds? If yes, why; if not, why???
Queston: Could Money For War Be Spent More Constructively?
- Thread starter Prakosh
- Start date
It looks to me like so far the dead and wounded Americans and Iraqis, which of course I didn't mention, but their numbers, according to one of my favorite Broadcasters, Johhn McLaughlin, are over 100, 000 Dead and hundreds of thousands more wounded, have been our biggest accomplishment. So what, other than the dead and wounded, would you say are our major acccomplishments there?
Imagine what a world we could have had if we had spent all that money on repairing America's infrastructure, building schools and equipping them with the best computers and making teachers and educators salaries commensurate with other professions. Imagine if we had spent that money on solar, wind and renewable energy sources rather than on the failed effort to secure and insure a supply of high priced gasoline.
Imagine if we had used that money to even pay down the national debt instead of ballooning it. Imagine if we had a president who really did use the military as a last resort in any conflict. And didn't define "last resort" as the first thing that popped into his head upon taking office.
Last edited:
I didn't say we had accomplished anything. I said it wasn't the goal to accomplish that... Ahhh... I see you are being fascetious.
Duh. And imagine if we had decided to spend the money on the "WOT"... Like on Humint (as I stated before and you ignored). See how I tied it in there? The money should have gone to the WOT... Did you notice?
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
100,000 is a nice round number. The thing is I heard it tossed around two years ago.
A site that I usually reference www.iraqbodycount.org put the total around 43 to 48 thousand killed.
This is nothing to cheer about but lets not be so careless in the use of numbers.
A site that I usually reference www.iraqbodycount.org put the total around 43 to 48 thousand killed.
This is nothing to cheer about but lets not be so careless in the use of numbers.
I would like you to post a source which claimed 2 years ago, that 100,000 Iraqi's had already died. I know you can produce that! You're right though, I shouldn't have rounded the number off. Here is Mr. McLaughlin in his own words from the September 8th Show:
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Okay, human toll: U.S. military dead in Iraq, including suicides, 2,662; U.S. military amputeed, wounded, severely injured, injured, mentally ill, all now out of Iraq, 63,500; Iraqi civilians dead, 130,890.
This is seriosly over the number many people are using and McLaughlin has been higher than this site you quoted since the war began. I don't know where he gets his number but it seems to increase every time he gives it and for some reason he is higher than the other site.
Besides he's a good conservative, why would he want to ramp it up???
Full Transcript
Last edited:
I didn't say we had accomplished anything. I said it wasn't the goal to accomplish that... Ahhh... I see you are being fascetious.
Duh. And imagine if we had decided to spend the money on the "WOT"... Like on Humint (as I stated before and you ignored). See how I tied it in there? The money should have gone to the WOT... Did you notice?
Well, according to Bush the War on Terror's main front is the War in Iraq. So are you saying the WOT has nothing to do with the War in Iraq or are you saying that we should have captured more innocent people and constructed more secret jails in foreign countires and filled them with more terror suspects and tortured them to get them to tell us more lies about what al Qaeda was up to so Bush could claim that he has foiled even more plots by the use of torture. So which is it? Or do you have some other way to get humint? And other ways to spend that money on it or not?
uscitizen
Villified User
Well I guess the money could have been spent on about anything else and it would have been more constructive than spending it on a war that has been mostly destructive Based on a false/incorrect premise of WMD presence, and is pretty much devolved into a civil war.
The reconstruction effort has only accompolished about 1/4 of what it was expected to at this point. Oil output is about 1/4 of pre war levels if that high, and gasoline is still being imported from Kuwait I believe.
All in all a very high accompolishment considering Bush is running it
The reconstruction effort has only accompolished about 1/4 of what it was expected to at this point. Oil output is about 1/4 of pre war levels if that high, and gasoline is still being imported from Kuwait I believe.
All in all a very high accompolishment considering Bush is running it
You're comparing apples and oranges.
BodyCount and the Lancet study measured different things.
Bodycount is a survey of the actual, reported civilian deaths. They don't count iraqi solider deaths, coalition deaths or insurgent deaths. Their own website says the number of dead probably far exceed their survey of actual reported deaths. Because in a war zone, not all deaths are reported to hospitals, morgues, or the media.
The lancet was a statistical, probabalistic estimate of ALL deaths in iraq - an attempt to statistically estimate all deaths, not just reported ones. Inlcuding civilians, police, and military.
A common quoted estimate of all deaths in World War Two is 20 million people. But those are estimates, since not all deaths could possibly have been formally reported to hospitals and morgues in that war. All formally reported deaths in World War Two might have been closer to five million, rather than the 20 million estimate.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
First of coalition deaths are below 5000.
In the invasion most of the Iraqis surrendered so I doubt their casualties are that high.
For the sake of a shorthand let us say that 5000 coalition have been killed.
Lets also take the upper end of the civilian body count which is 48000
This brings us to 53000. Are we really to believe that we have killed 47000 insurgents and Iraqi army.
I doubt the Iraqi army casualites in the invasion exceeded 15000. I also would say that the insurgency doesn't number more than 50000. Have we managed to kill 2/3 of the insurgency I doubt it.
In the invasion most of the Iraqis surrendered so I doubt their casualties are that high.
For the sake of a shorthand let us say that 5000 coalition have been killed.
Lets also take the upper end of the civilian body count which is 48000
This brings us to 53000. Are we really to believe that we have killed 47000 insurgents and Iraqi army.
I doubt the Iraqi army casualites in the invasion exceeded 15000. I also would say that the insurgency doesn't number more than 50000. Have we managed to kill 2/3 of the insurgency I doubt it.
Lancet statitically estimates ALL deaths. Including unreported civilian deaths.
IraqBodyCount only counts formally reported civilian deaths.
Surely, you recognize that in rural Anbar province, civilians are dying in sectarian violence that isn't neccessarily reported to the media, or at the city morgue?
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
Of course there are undocumented deaths. I doubt though that 50% of the deaths are undocumented. The Lancet report stated 100000 deaths when the official count was around 20000. So then it was a 5 to 1 relationship.
The very source you cite - IraqBodyCount - states in its methodolgy, that many or most death in iraq are probably unreported. And that they are only tabulating formally reported deaths from media sources.
This is a historical fact of war, especially in third world countries. Many of the deaths in the conflict are not reported formally in the media or at the city morgue. I doubt iraq is any different from other conflicts.
uscitizen
Villified User
umm I think we only started keeping official count of the deaths less than one year ago....
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
I know that Cypress but how do we infer that the deaths are five times greater than that reported. Many projections can be greatly skewed and erroneous.
I don't find the study strong enough to use it as a point of debate.
Oh well I find it kind of macabre to debate about how many lives have been destroyed by this war. The main point is that it is too many but I fear that when people use numbers that do not have strong backing behind them it undermines the main message.
I don't find the study strong enough to use it as a point of debate.
Oh well I find it kind of macabre to debate about how many lives have been destroyed by this war. The main point is that it is too many but I fear that when people use numbers that do not have strong backing behind them it undermines the main message.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
50000 dead is what is needed to protect our freedoms USC.
What's wrong with using or citing credible, peer-reviewed estimates
Certainly, we always cite the fact the Stalin killed twenty million peopal, and that fourty million civilians died in world war two. These are not based on actual, quantitative tabulations of formally reported deaths in newspapers and hosptital morgues.