If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.
Fark SearchWeb Fark

         more options... Create account

(AP) Sad Iraq's total cost, adjusted for inflation, is approaching that of Vietnam's, with $648 billion spent, and only half the time of military occupation   (hosted.ap.org) divider line 415
More: Sad  
•       •       •

2109 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jul 2008 at 3:32 AM   |  Make this a Fark FavoriteFavorite    |   share: Share on OMGTWITTER WEB2.0share on StumbleUponshare on Facebook  more»

415 Comments   (+0 »)


Fark.com's  Political Inclination Thermometric Analyzer:
100.00% Commie 2.24% Fascist
Archived thread
First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
gopher321 [TotalFark] 2008-07-26 12:42:16 AM  
You'll get over it.

 
ndotseth 2008-07-26 12:51:10 AM  
Freedom isn't cheap.

 
Tr0mBoNe [TotalFark] 2008-07-26 12:54:18 AM  
Same price and a fraction of the deaths on the American size?

 
oldebayer [TotalFark] 2008-07-26 01:06:21 AM  
Tr0mBoNe

Same price and a fraction of the deaths

You make it sound like it would be cheap at twice the price.

You are not supporting the troops. Why do you hate America?

 
burndtdan 2008-07-26 01:22:45 AM  
ndotseth: Freedom isn't cheap.

freedom costs a buck-oh-five.

 
Mordant [TotalFark] 2008-07-26 02:16:49 AM  
Yes, it sure is a good thing we defended our freedom.

 
SchlingFo 2008-07-26 02:50:06 AM  
For that much money, I'm pissed that we haven't killed more brown people over there.

I say we need to start razing some random villages. Napalm works, for starters.

 
southaustin [TotalFark] 2008-07-26 03:36:23 AM  
Before everyone gets all stupid, please note that the article accounts for inflation and the changes in the American dollar.

Thank you for your attention to this weighty matter.

www.socalbubble.com

 
Oakland A's FTW! 2008-07-26 03:37:23 AM  
When, if ever, will we see the numbers on Iraqi death tolls?

 
sarcastrophe 2008-07-26 03:38:20 AM  
SchlingFo: I say we need to start razing some random villages. Napalm works, for starters.

I heard that it sticks to kids.

 
qrb912 [TotalFark] 2008-07-26 03:39:45 AM  
The reason it is costing so much more per/year is, because we use all these guided weapons that cose 1 to 2 million dollars per shot. I vietnam, we just droped a bunch of dumb bombs and killed everything in a 1 square mile area. If people would stop crying so much about colateral damage and come to grips with war sucks, it would cose less and be over quicker.

 
Ace Attorney 2008-07-26 03:39:49 AM  
nashBridges: Seriously, take any ostensible goal of this war and we've failed to reach it:

1) Stop terrorism - for the most part.
2) Foothold in the Middle East to stabilize the region - yes.
3) Oil - sorta.
4) Remove a tyrant to make Iraqis safer - Hell Yes.
5) Corner the global market on used, sand infested military equipment - THERE WERE NO WMDS BUSH LIED PAY NO ATTENTION TO THOSE STOCKS OF MUSTARD GAS OVER IN THE CORNER.


/FTFY

 
JFP's Gym Partner 2008-07-26 03:39:49 AM  
But what is the comparison for percentage of GDP? That would probably be a more useful comparison.

 
YoungSwedishBlonde 2008-07-26 03:40:58 AM  
This thread should be full of thoughtful, well-reasoned comments.

 
Oakland A's FTW! 2008-07-26 03:41:26 AM  
Jeremy Bates: 3. Expand the power of the executive office and diminish the power of the other two branches to control it.

THIS is the one we need to worry about most.

 
tkirby 2008-07-26 03:41:51 AM  
Police Action

 
j0ndas 2008-07-26 03:43:33 AM  
However, casualties in Vietnam were 10x what we have so far in Iraq.

 
Argh2 2008-07-26 03:43:36 AM  
Much crappier songs this war. I bet we'll get better movies, though.

 
Alphax 2008-07-26 03:44:12 AM  
Well, yeah, the Bush Administration has been using as much of Other People's Money as possible. War Profiteering.

 
Ace Attorney 2008-07-26 03:44:57 AM  
Jeremy Bates: nashBridges: There has to be more, and goddammit, I want to know what that "more" is.

There were several, in my opinion:

1. Allowing corporate buddies to rape the treasury.
2. Bankrupting the federal government (a long-time dream of many Republicans -- see the "drown it in the bathtub" speech) in order to convince people that they should trust private companies and corporations instead of the government.
3. Expand the power of the executive office and diminish the power of the other two branches to control it.

I'm sure other people can come up with more reasons, but those are the three main ones, I think.


Dude, there was a pothole in front of my house. Was there for the past 5 years. I kept going to the council, they said they don't have the funding. I hire an asphalt company to do it, problem solved.

You are right though. If Bush didn't use the Constitution to wipe his ass, maybe Congress would've at least been able to start on that list of things they would do in the first 100 hours. Its all his fault, not incompetent Democrats running Congress

 
Flying Lasagna Monster 2008-07-26 03:45:15 AM  
I told my Grandma about this, and she literally started to puke.

i190.photobucket.com

 
carpbrain 2008-07-26 03:45:50 AM  
Jeremy Bates: nashBridges: There has to be more, and goddammit, I want to know what that "more" is.

There were several, in my opinion:

1. Allowing corporate buddies to rape the treasury.
2. Bankrupting the federal government (a long-time dream of many Republicans -- see the "drown it in the bathtub" speech) in order to convince people that they should trust private companies and corporations instead of the government.
3. Expand the power of the executive office and diminish the power of the other two branches to control it.

I'm sure other people can come up with more reasons, but those are the three main ones, I think.


This.

It's worth noting that we're managing to spend many, many more dollars per soldier/year than in any previous conflict.

Happily, we are now reaping the great returns on that investment!

/ Freedom on the march?
// dollar on the march south

 
Fizics 2008-07-26 03:46:14 AM  
GW deserves a medal for the suffering he's endured throughout his public scourging. Shame on you people for not showing patriotism a- hahahah I can't even finish it.

 
Yes Sound 2008-07-26 03:48:39 AM  
Tr0mBoNe: Same price and a fraction of the deaths on the American size?

Monetary costs are only a fraction of the burden. The cost in lives for a war is much much more significant (or at least it is to me). But the most significant cost of the Iraq war is the global goodwill we pissed away after 9/11.

 
Oakland A's FTW! 2008-07-26 03:49:04 AM  
Fizics: GW deserves a medal for the suffering he's endured throughout his public scourging. Shame on you people for not showing patriotism a- hahahah I can't even finish it.

+ 1 I lol'd.

 
WFern 2008-07-26 03:49:05 AM  
ndotseth: Freedom isn't cheap.

Right, because that's what this war is all about. Really hoping your remark was sarcasm.

 
Ace Attorney 2008-07-26 03:49:30 AM  
Before this Week

Obama: We must get the troops out of Iraq, because the surge obviously isn't working

This week

Obama: Shame on NATO for not helping America with our surge that is totally working

 
Littledogg 2008-07-26 03:50:06 AM  
Argh2: Much crappier songs this war. I bet we'll get better movies, though.

I agree with the music and disagree about the movies. Vietnam had awesome serious movies but it also provided the backdrop for other less serious movies like the Missing in Action trilogy and First Blood I & II. WW2 has a whole bunch of great movies and Korea had MASH. The first gulf war gave us 3 Kings which was terrible and Jarhead which sucked even more. Desert warfare just doesn't seem to be as sexy on film as jungles and nazis.

 
moosen 2008-07-26 03:50:13 AM  

 
carpbrain 2008-07-26 03:50:51 AM  
WFern: ndotseth: Freedom isn't cheap.

Right, because that's what this war is all about. Really hoping your remark was sarcasm.


Fark newbie? You don't know ndotseth. He is the canonical one-shot Fark troll, posts once and never speaks again -- as s/he is apparently incapable of discourse.

 
Hide your chickens 2008-07-26 03:53:03 AM  
...with $648 billion spent..

Relax, we won in Vietnam and we'll win in Iraq too.

 
carpbrain 2008-07-26 03:53:44 AM  
Ace Attorney: Before this Week

Obama: We must get the troops out of Iraq, because the surge obviously isn't working

This week

Obama: Shame on NATO for not helping America with our surge that is totally working


McCain: The Surge enabled the Sunni Awakening, which occurred one year before the Surge, which, um, is actually our amazing strategy that enabled the Sunni Awakening a year before it started.

 
pjbreeze 2008-07-26 03:53:50 AM  
Remember this, you don't go to war with money that you do have, you go to a fictitious bank with an infinite money supply, borrow unreal money, and then you go to war. Or you could go to war then borrow the money. Actually both are okay.

 
Argh2 2008-07-26 03:54:10 AM  
qrb912: The reason it is costing so much more per/year is, because we use all these guided weapons that cose 1 to 2 million dollars per shot. I vietnam, we just droped a bunch of dumb bombs and killed everything in a 1 square mile area. If people would stop crying so much about colateral damage and come to grips with war sucks, it would cose less and be over quicker.

Dude, were you paying attention AT ALL? If there was any intended outcome of this stupid thing, it was to get Iraq on our side. Indiscriminate bombing and huge civilian casualties actually works AGAINST us.

Yes, war sucks. It's also difficult. You can't just kill noncombatants at random and expect the survivors to be on your side. Some problems you have to think all the way through before you act.

 
WFern 2008-07-26 03:55:55 AM  
Ace Attorney: Before this Week

Obama: We must get the troops out of Iraq, because the surge obviously isn't working

This week

Obama: Shame on NATO for not helping America with our surge that is totally working


Uh... fill me in here.

Step 1. America enters unnecessary and horrifying war. Step 2. Obama opposes escalation in the form of the Surge. Step 3. Sadr structures cease-fire, American government bribes militias to slow violence. Step 4. Ceasefires end, violence resumes, Obama thanks the troops for doing what they could.

I've been following this all very closely on a daily basis, so I'm a little curious as to what I've apparently missed. Maybe you're "confused" like your boy McCain.

 
Argh2 2008-07-26 03:56:07 AM  
Yes Sound: Tr0mBoNe: Same price and a fraction of the deaths on the American size?

Monetary costs are only a fraction of the burden. The cost in lives for a war is much much more significant (or at least it is to me). But the most significant cost of the Iraq war is the global goodwill we pissed away after 9/11.


THIS

 
Ace Attorney 2008-07-26 03:57:55 AM  
Argh2: You can't just kill noncombatants at random and expect the survivors to be on your side.

It worked for the CCCP, and China, and Iran, and etc. etc. etc.

You just don't want us to, because even though you don't believe in God, you can't risk the fact that he might exist and you might end up going to hell if you support those "National Socialist Republicans"

 
WFern 2008-07-26 03:59:21 AM  
Yes Sound: Tr0mBoNe: Same price and a fraction of the deaths on the American size?

Monetary costs are only a fraction of the burden. The cost in lives for a war is much much more significant (or at least it is to me). But the most significant cost of the Iraq war is the global goodwill we pissed away after 9/11.


This is certainly true, but money is a factor as well. That much certainly goes a long way - healthcare, education, Afghanistan even.

Not to mention where this amount is coming from - largely borrowed from the Chinese.

 
bolzy 2008-07-26 03:59:26 AM  
I believe thanks to the evangelists are in order.


/Democracy is a utopian idea put to waste by ignorant, stupid, lazy and the wicked

 
Alphax 2008-07-26 03:59:56 AM  
nashBridges: Cheney isn't operating as a government shill simply to make money. He made more money working the private sector. There's another reason. He's also a self-confessed nationalist, so if he thought he'd be hurting the country he wouldn't push the war.

I'm not so sure about that.

 
The Grasshopper 2008-07-26 03:59:57 AM  
one question.
why do they say...whe have to win the war?
iraqi army desimated...check
new government...check
new army....check
new elected officials...check
what part of that isn't the "the war isn't over" doesn't anyone understand?
we won the war.
it's about nation building now.
why is it so hard to say...the war is over?
it's just about the schools now?

 
Ace Attorney 2008-07-26 04:02:08 AM  
WFern: Step 1. America enters a war after a foreign entity attacks (when has that happened before?). Step 2. Obama opposes escalation in the form of the Surge. Step 3. Obama runs for president Step 4. Obama looks at polls, sees nobody likes it when Congress doesn't follow through with their promises, so he changes his position, again.

Hope that helps

 
The Grasshopper 2008-07-26 04:02:15 AM  
ps...been drinking..sorry

 
SevenYearHawk 2008-07-26 04:03:21 AM  
and I'd wager, less entertainment from the locals ...

Full Metal Jacket: (new window)

 
Biological Ali 2008-07-26 04:03:57 AM  
Ace Attorney: Obama: Shame on NATO for not helping America with our surge that is totally working

[citation needed]

 
Ace Attorney 2008-07-26 04:04:27 AM  
The Grasshopper: one question.
why do they say...whe have to win the war?
iraqi army desimated...check
new government...check
new army....check
new elected officials...check
what part of that isn't the "the war isn't over" doesn't anyone understand?
we won the war.
it's about nation building now.
why is it so hard to say...the war is over?
it's just about the schools now?


I remember hearing some country called Iran wanting nukes, but I'm sure Obama can fix that, just like Jimmy Carter did years ago. Right?

RIGHT?!?!?!

 
Superjew 2008-07-26 04:05:04 AM  
nashBridges: Cheney isn't operating as a government shill simply to make money. He made more money working the private sector. There's another reason. He's also a self-confessed nationalist, so if he thought he'd be hurting the country he wouldn't push the war.

AAAAAA hahahahahahahahahahahaahhaahahahahhaahahahahhaahhah!

/jesus, don't do that anymore - my hernia can't take it.

 
moeriscus 2008-07-26 04:05:13 AM  
Oakland A's FTW!: Jeremy Bates: 3. Expand the power of the executive office and diminish the power of the other two branches to control it.

THIS is the one we need to worry about most.


Congress has castrated itself through incompetence and its own inability to pass any meaningful legislation. The power of the executive branch has increased simply by default.

/tired
//meh

 
Argh2 2008-07-26 04:06:04 AM  


It worked for the CCCP, and China, and Iran, and etc. etc. etc.

You just don't want us to, because even though you don't believe in God, you can't risk the fact that he might exist and you might end up going to hell if you support those "National Socialist Republicans"


A. It did NOT work for the CCCP (wonder why that's an obsolete acronym?). It's NOT working for China (Tibet), and Iran hasn't invaded anyone in over a thousand years. Get your head out of your ass.

B. Don't assume so much. It makes you look ever stupider than you are.

 
Paulistinian 2008-07-26 04:06:10 AM  
JFP's Gym Partner: But what is the comparison for percentage of GDP? That would probably be a more useful comparison.

Why? That's as arbitrary a measure as any. Might as well say, "This war isn't expensive because I only pay $.79 for cinnamon twists at Taco Bell!"

 
Displayed 50 of 415 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all


[Continue Farking]