[NumDusthouh]

Dang! First gas, now war!

[masterso]

Why didn't you let this stupid thread drop?

[AdvertisingPo]

Remember when freedom just cost a buck o' five?

[Xibizopt]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
But they did.

So at the very least they can stay there and try to fix it.

(whether they ever will is another question) some people argue that NOT staying is the way to fix it

[UvjqTVVC]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Why didn't you let this stupid thread drop? You're just bitter cos you're spending all this money directly out of your pocket and people are taking the piss out of your for doing it...

[OvDojQXN]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Ok whats your point MOBIUS?

Yes its expensive. Yes they could be spending that money on better things. Yes they shouldn't have invaded in the first place.

But they did.

So at the very least they can stay there and try to fix it.

(whether they ever will is another question) It's called gloating.

-Arrian

[wizardasa]

Many people were right about the war, MOBIUS. Get over yourself.

-Arrian

[hernkingAnank]

:P you and your reputable sources

[finnmontserrat]

NPR isn't exactly a parrot for the admin. Whatever, 500 billion, 811 billion... pretty soon we're talking about real money!

-Arrian

[JonnTEN]

Originally posted by Arrian
NPR isn't exactly a parrot for the admin. Whatever, 500 billion, 811 billion... pretty soon we're talking about real money!

-Arrian Maybe they were only estimating for current spending, which is fairly close to the Congress estimates of $439bn and not the thirteen year prediction?

But then Oerdin didn't make that distinction or provide a link, which is rather surprising considering he appeared to be criticising me for the same thing...

What does NPR stand for anyway, 'National Partnership for Reinventing Government Reports'?

[Mappaindy]

Originally posted by Arrian
Whatever. Half a trillion, a trillion... it's a huge sum either way. And that's not even the half of it. Well then, these things are usually woefully underestimated...

I seem to remember mentioning figures of $200bn shortly after GWB declared a 'cessation to hostilities' and a number of people here laughed at me...

[leflyCode]

I'm still curious about the reasons for the divergence between the US and UK figures. How can the UK provide 7% of the forces at 1% of the cost?

[smifatv]

Originally posted by MOBIUS


That works out to roughly $2,717.43 for every man, woman and child in the US - Pah! I already owe 50 times that anyway.

[kaiayout]

Originally posted by MOBIUS


I expected better of you Oerdin, you seemed one of the smarter posters on this forum - no wonder I'm so smug when you guys appear to know so little about your own congressional agencies and attempt to disguise your own laziness/ignorance/feeblemindedness* by saying I'm the one who's afraid to provide a link that someone with even the most rudimentary GOOGLE skills could track down at the touch of a button...


Like shooting fish in a barrel...

*Choose as appropriate Mobius, that was only semi-literate. If you read your own links you'd see (from the BBC article) that Congress has only estimated the cost at $368bn while the $811 billion figure, which you have quoted, is a guess-timate for if things continue 10 years out.

No one can accurately project war cost ten years out and it is highly unlikely that the war will still be going on ten years out. Even if you subtract the first three years and say that they're only projecting 7 years into the future it is still a bunch of pig crap. Please read your own links before posting such rubbish.

[alex_loudermilk]

In other news, Dubyah could drop dead tomorrow.

[rammossyAcron]

The OP is lame in that it didn't adjust the cost of the Vietnam war for inflation.

[dxpfmP0l]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
In other news, Dubyah could drop dead tomorrow. He should at least have the decency to wait until January 1st.

[DoctorTDent]

While the OP did indeed index the Vietnam war costs for inflation, the two figures are not directly comparable. Vietnam was a war run with conscripts while Iraq is being run with a professional force.

As to how much this is costing each American, I don't think non-Americans have cause to comment. The way these taxes work, the payment is coming from Ming's and Lefty's pocketbook, primarily. I have a healthy appreciation of how much this is costing me in financial terms.

[blogforloversxx]

While it may sound like it from the name, it is most certainly NOT a government mouthpiece. Conservatives hate it, as a matter of fact. I listen to NPR

The Democrats calculate that between 2002 and 2008 the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan will have cost the average US family of four about $20,900. Was it here or at CFC (WTF?) that this mindless hacker of basic math got totally trashed?

[Diandaplaipsy]

yaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwn... what a boring thread