PDA

View Full Version : Total cost for War on Terrorism is around 1 Trillion




tangent4ronpaul
01-27-2010, 01:53 PM
according to a CRS report, and this is before figuring in the costs of the USSTAZI - er, I mean Department of Homeland Security (sic), so the real cost is probably closer to 2 Trillion.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf

Just something to keep in mind today as you listen to all the pundents talk about our total debt and if you can stomach it, listen to the president lie and mislead tonight.

But look at the bright side - a stack of 2 trillion one dollar bills will reach 2/3rds of the way to the moon, so we cas save some big bucks on the space program! :rolleyes:

-t

Bruno
01-27-2010, 03:28 PM
That can't be. I thought it was only supposed to cost $50 billion, tops. :rolleyes:

hook, line and sinker, America!

Vessol
01-27-2010, 03:35 PM
It's just mind-blowing how a lot of the chic anti-war left now suddenly thinks it's a good war and we are doing well. My favorite argument is people trying to say Iraq was a bad war and Afghanistan is a good war. Especially when the media makes it seem that as coverage slips off the war in Iraq and barely even covers the negatives in Afghanistan.

What a lot of these people don't realize is that Afghanistan IS the place where Empires go to die. It's such a mountainous and rough region. Even the Taliban who occupied it before just barely did. At most they occupied most of the urban centers. The vast majority of Afghanis live in rural areas. Who has controlled these areas for years? Tribal leaders. And they still do. If we want to "win" this war we have to work with them. But what will that accomplish? They still treat their people like shit, so there goes the "democracy card" we throw out to justify Afghanistan. Fighting the Taliban? Hell, we work with a lot of them now. The resistance we fight has grown steadily to become everyday Afghani's who are fighting what they rightly view as an occupation. You think Vietnam was a clusterfuck? If we continue with Afghanistan it will go on for decades until we give up. Genghis Khan never conquered it, Britain never conquered it, Russia never conquered it, and neither will America.

idirtify
01-27-2010, 03:40 PM
All for a risk that is truly infinitesimal. Now if you still don’t think the war on terrorism is 33+% profit motivated, 33+% religious motivated, and 33+% politically motivated (and less than one percent for the purpose of protection) - then you just might need serious psychological help.

dgr
01-27-2010, 05:39 PM
That's not even close. You have to take into the State Dept spending, which, they can't account for the 3 largets amounts on line item spending, because the SD rep at the congressional oversite hearing, said no one perosn was in charge of the money, and that was in 2007. There is DOD, pentagon, state,,ets plus the actual military spending , does not include construstion cost, 800,000 million to Kuait for just one of the 23 buildings on the "largest embassay site" the US has, larger than Vatican City, which is not occupied, because IT DOESN'T EVEN MEET IRAQI CODE STANDARS. over a million to Blackwater and there were 22 other priviate security firms on and on and on

and the best part, DOD grants and HS grants to companies for the same thing one for Iraq and the other for border security, but same systems and dual funding
then there's the 15million a year to Duboi to transport suppliesl from here to there and they lost over 100,000 weapons of all sizes, and the ammmo to go with it. We had to buy replacements from Iseral and Spain

I have to stop now just like I had to stop looking in 2007

DamianTV
01-27-2010, 05:41 PM
Well if we are gonna go to war, I want my cut too! Wait a tic, where is my cut? Whaddya mean it was used to pay for your new office furniture?

tangent4ronpaul
01-27-2010, 05:47 PM
That's not even close. You have to take into the State Dept spending, which, they can't account for the 3 largets amounts on line item spending, because the SD rep at the congressional oversite hearing, said no one perosn was in charge of the money, and that was in 2007. There is DOD, pentagon, state,,ets plus the actual military spending , does not include construstion cost, 800,000 million to Kuait for just one of the 23 buildings on the "largest embassay site" the US has, larger than Vatican City, which is not occupied, because IT DOESN'T EVEN MEET IRAQI CODE STANDARS. over a million to Blackwater and there were 22 other priviate security firms on and on and on

and the best part, DOD grants and HS grants to companies for the same thing one for Iraq and the other for border security, but same systems and dual funding
then there's the 15million a year to Duboi to transport suppliesl from here to there and they lost over 100,000 weapons of all sizes, and the ammmo to go with it. We had to buy replacements from Iseral and Spain

I have to stop now just like I had to stop looking in 2007

If you look at the CRS report, the first paragraph lists what's covered and what's not. What's covered is a alot, if not most of what you just listed off.

-t

Liberty Star
01-28-2010, 11:34 PM
Total cost is many folds of this number, just abu ghraib alone probably cost $1 trillion in accumulation of direct/indirect costs for the period it extended freedom ops there.