"I also wonder what kind lesson the Russians would have learned from this movie that could be replicated today in Afghanistan?" Russians were in Afganistan for 9 years and they lost 15,000 soldiers. US has been there for 8 years now and they have probably lost 2000 (i may be slightly wrong). That says a lot about strategizing and implementing a 'course of action'. Russians have a lot to learn from the west. Problem is Russians do not learn any lessons quickly and they tend to repeat their mistakes. It took them good 10 years before they realized that going totally naked before the capitalism was not the way to run a transition system. By 2000, the economy had shrunk by 80% and starving folks stopped having any babies threatening the whole future for the next two generations. I consider Chinese, American and even Indians to be more practical and less impulsive nations and thus they are on more secured path.
I suppose that could be true over six years, but wouldn't the important figure be the total cost and that would have to assume some amortization schedule. All of the estimates by economists that I have seen put the total Iraq cost at 3-4 trillion -- those estimates include interest, veterans benefits, the whole nine yards. They are easily available via a google search. Unfortunately the number may have grown substantially since these estimates were made. The money spent in Iraq has a good probability of being money down a rat hole, we won't know for a long time. The bailout money should be mostly recoverable. These are major differences.
'The money spent in Iraq has a good probability of being money down a rat hole, we won't know for a long time.' Not really all the war spending does not go down the drain. Wages for soldiers, tranportation, ammunition required and blown up all are funneled back into economy in the form of new consumption and demand. Infact, war is a good tool to pull economies out of a recession or even depression.
But I live in the US and I have the right to say what is on my mind. And in my opinion, it is a major mistake for the US to expand its military involvement in Afghanistan. By the way, I came from Brazil - a country where we also have freedom of speech. .
But I live in the US and I have the right to say what is on my mind. I have the right to move to Texas and complain all day long about how bad Texas is, but don't you think that would be rude? So you come here and enjoy what we have to offer and you repay us by typing anti-US rants. You don't represent Brazilians very well. It is difficult to understand why you would want to be here given your low opinion of the US, other than maybe for hateful reasons.
I suppose that could be true over six years, but wouldn't the important figure be the total cost and that would have to assume some amortization schedule. All of the estimates by economists that I have seen put the total Iraq cost at 3-4 trillion -- those estimates include interest, veterans benefits, the whole nine yards. They are easily available via a google search. Unfortunately the number may have grown substantially since these estimates were made A quick google search does not reveal that. Only anti-war leftsists make up that number and they do it by adding in 'societal costs' which are numbers pulled from their ass in order to support their anti-war rhetoric. I am not trying to make a statement about the usefulness of the war but that kind of estimate is useless. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html By the time you add in the costs hidden in the defense budget, the money we'll have to spend to help future veterans, and money to refurbish a military whose equipment and materiel have been greatly depleted, the total tab to the federal government will almost surely exceed $1.5 trillion. But the costs to our society and economy are far greater. When a young soldier is killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, his or her family will receive a U.S. government check for just $500,000 (combining life insurance with a "death gratuity") -- far less than the typical amount paid by insurance companies for the death of a young person in a car accident. The stark "budgetary cost" of $500,000 is clearly only a fraction of the total cost society pays for the loss of life -- and no one can ever really compensate the families. Moreover, disability pay seldom provides adequate compensation for wounded troops or their families. Indeed, in one out of five cases of seriously injured soldiers, someone in their family has to give up a job to take care of them. But beyond this is the cost to the already sputtering U.S. economy. All told, the bill for the Iraq war is likely to top $3 trillion. And that's a conservative estimate. 'likely estimate' when those words are used by someone with a political agenda they mean nothing. Direct costs are 1.5 T over ~10 years. The point is that this deflects attention away from the real problems here. We just spent $1.5T in a matter of months, not years. It is not recoverable, it was stimulus, many trillions more in implied obligation, 50-60 T in unfunded social welfare liabilities, state pension funds broke, etc. I HOPE the bailout money is recovered but I would bet that any cash sent GMs way will be not paid back. In any given year in the last six years, the war cost about $180 billion a year. Old farts get about $1 Trillion a year and that will only grow, at least Iraq will end. 25,000 wounded veterans is no problem compared to 100 million retired people.
. May 13, 2009 SouthAmerica: Reply to Mav88 I came to the US many years ago and I have witnessed first hand the unbelievable economic decline of the United States during all these years. But you are just a young person who takes everything for granted and you canât appreciate what is being lost in this country. You need people like me to make you angry and to wake you up before this country becomes a basket case. You tanked me for posting an example of some of your old postings. But that sample just gives us some clues about your mind-set and we can conclude that some of your heroes are probably Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Rush Limbaugh. I noticed on your postings that you think that most people have âfailed math and reading comprehensionâ and many people donât understand your postings. For someone who thinks that he is so good on math you have missed one of the major points of my postings â let me clarify to you once more with the enclosed example and maybe you will be able to grasp what I am trying to say: Here is some further reality check for you: USA Today - March 20, 2009 â$ 1 trillion deficits estimated for each of the next 10 yearsâ â¦The new Congressional Budget Office figures predict Obama's budget will produce $9.3 trillion worth of red ink over 2010-2019. That's $2.3 trillion worse than the administration predicted in its budget just last month. ⦠Even so, Orszag acknowledged that if the CBO projections prove accurate, Obama's budget would produce deficits that could not be sustained. "Deficits in the, let's say, 5% of GDP range would lead to rising debt-to-GDP ratios that would ultimately not be sustainable," Orszag told reporters. Deficits so big put upward pressure on interest rates as the government offers more attractive interest rates to attract borrowers. "I think deficits of 5% (of GDP) are unsupportable," said economist Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com. Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washin...l-deficit_N.htm ***** These guys â Orszag and Zandi and most of the mainstream US media for that matter â use on their calculations the Fairy Tale figures for U.S. GDP of around $ 14 trillion dollars. That means the US economy is already in much deep trouble than most people want to recognize and accept. The reality is: we are lucky if after the financial and economic meltdown that we are going through the actual U.S. GDP still is around $ 10 trillion dollars. When the mainstream global media wakes up to that reality and they start using ratios based on the $ 10 trillion dollars U.S. GDP on their analysis then everybody will be in shock with the results. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com said: "I think deficits of 5% (of GDP) are unsupportable." â and that statement was based on the Fairy Tale U.S. GDP of over $ 14 trillion dollars. Imagine what he is going to say about the same stream of deficits based on the actual U.S. GDP of $ 10 trillion dollars. What I donât get it is why very intelligent people still using on their calculations the Fairy Tale figure of over $ 14 trillion dollars for U.S. GDP instead of the actual figure of around $ 10 trillion dollars? Please donât get me wrong here after the implosion that we have been going through in the US economy that figure for actual U.S. GDP could be as low as $ 9 trillion dollars by now. .
The problem with the debt isn't the military, it's entitlements and other gov't programs. We could fight a war with the savings off medicare fraud alone. This is really something to behold, americans ask how we could let two consecutive bubbles happen despite all the warnings. Here we have an even bigger problem happening in clear view, yet american politics will not allow an answer. The psychology of americans appears to be passive resignation that somehow somebody else will pay for it because 'I' sure as hell am not taking the hit. This allows liberalism to block all attempts at trimming entitlements and runaway gov't in a meaningful way. Check out the frustrating history of the farm subsidy program, then you will understand.
'The problem with the debt isn't the military, it's entitlements and other gov't programs.' Strongly disagree, shaving off $150B a year in 1990s (after the cold war was over), from military budget would have brought the US financial sheets into black ink again. Too late now for one item to save the day. Now across the board cuts are needed in each and every major item. Ever heard of the phrase 'pay now and cry later'.......now is the time cry for the payments made 20 years ago.
It's funny that obama [sic] democrats want to reform health care but can't seem to manage SS/Medicare. At least defense creates jobs and manages the numnuts abroad.