Discussion in 'Economics' started by bearice, Apr 10, 2011.
I always love when they try to shock you at how much the war in Iraq costs by bringing the costs down to a "per week" average. In that wikipedia entry it said the US was spending 2 billion dollars per week in Iraq. Well go back to the year 1999 when we were at war with nobody and our troops were just sitting on their asses doing drills and things like that. Military expenditures then was $280 billion per year which is over $5 billion per week.
So when these jokers are figuring out what it costs to be in Iraq, why dont they subtract what it will cost to have these soldiers sitting at home doing nothing? We still pay even if they are not in another country, right?
There we go. Now we're talkin First thread I don't hate you for.
Then we need to cut down on military spending. We're wasting gobs of money on that shit, and it could be spent on WAY better things.
Tanks don't build houses.
It wasn't a war. It was a kinetic military action. Wikipedia is completely unreliable. If it was a war, the US would have just started killing and stopped when the enemy quit fighting, ala Japan 1945.
Bonus question: Were more casualties incurred by the US in the attack on Pearl Harbor or on 9/11?
$4T ? not enough to interest american people.
more important is which sport team will win this year.
Sad but true.
Separate names with a comma.