I have made many references in this blog to the cost of the Iraq "war"* being 11 million dollars every hour. That’s a gross, vast amount of money.
And it turns out it’s wrong: it’s too low. The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are closer to 20 million dollars per hour
Twenty. Million. Per hour. By the time it took you to read those few words, we threw $20,000 at the wars. Maybe more if you’re a slow reader.
This number comes from Ted Stevens, a man I normally wouldn’t trust with tying his shoes correctly, but I’ll note he is a Republican and used these numbers — and you can’t make stuff like this up — to ask for more money for the wars.
If you’re curious about how much that money means in real terms, go to the very scary website Cost of War… and then multiply their numbers by two, because they are based on the older war cost estimates.
I think the thing that scares me most about the "War on Terror" is how my daughter and her children, and their children…) will pay for it.
Why is "war" in quotation marks? Because I don’t remember Congress ever authorizing a declaration of war as is mandated in the Constitution.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
BA, my fear is that not only will our children be paying for an insane war, but they will still be fighting it. Even though I live in Canada, my kids live with my ex in the States, and that truly concerns me.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
What’s ironic about the war supporters is that they want to spare no expense, freedom or civil liberty in order to have the government protect us all from a threat that is so incredibly rare that you are more likely to get killed by lightning than a terrorist attack.
But when it comes to REAL threats like global warming, threats that affect us all and threats that we can actually do something about, those that don’t outright deny that anything is wrong refuse to do anything about it, and accuse those of us who want to solve the problem as “scare mongers.”
December 28th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Would cost alot more if they hit Wall Street on our own soil.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
I don’t plan on having children, and I’m still very scared.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
>Would cost alot more if they hit Wall Street on our own soil.
You’re doing the terrorists’ job for them.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Does the estimate include how much it costs to pay for the Department of Fatherland Security? How much productivity does it cost in extra time at airports waiting in line while people collect lighters, watch you take off your shoes, waiting for the guy ahead of you to search through all of his pockets to find the penny that is causing the alarm to go “beep, beep, beep?”
Does it estimate all of the city halls and public buildings that have added security since 9/11? Does it factor in the cost of the satellites and listening software and the computers that are monitoring everything we write to determine a terror algorithm?
Does it measure the cost of our civil liberties? Oh, wait, my bad. Liberty is a quaint concept from the 18th century, isn’t it?
Terrorism is the new cold war, something to scare us into subsuming our country to a paternalistic state. Think about that the next time some stupid conservative talks about the “nanny state.”
December 28th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
EE.UU. gasta 20 millones de dólares cada hora en guerras [ENG]…
Se pensaba que Estados Unidos gastaba la altísima cantidad de 11 millones de dólares a la hora en guerras como la de Irak, pero la cifra era errónea. En realidad es mucho mayor. Así lo comenta Phil Plait, de Bad Astronomy, a raíz de los comentario…
December 28th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
And how many of the hundreds of Iraqis, Syrians, Afghans, Pakistanis and Saudis who joined Al Qaida specifically to fight the US occupation of Iraq do you think would have had the slightest interest in bombing on American soil had it not been for us bringing the fight to their borders in the first place?
There is absolutely no way that Al Qaida is any weaker today than it was at the fall of the Taliban regime, and it is likely that there are several hundred around now that have been trained in bomb making and battle hardened by their experience fighting against the US troops in the desert. Keeping the US troops bogged down in Iraq for years has proved far more costly this country than a couple of car bombings or suicide attacks would have been on US soil, even if they had targeted Wall Street, and Al Qaida knows this and I suspect that Bin Laden and his evil cohorts are quite happy with the way things have been going these past four years.
And in case you hadn’t noticed, all the Wall Street firms have disaster recovery plans in place that would have them back up and running in hours after any attack short of a nuclear or biological disaster (neither of which has been made any less likely by us being stuck in Iraq).
Of course, if our troops finally manage to dig up all those mythical WMDs from the desert soil, perhaps then Dubya would be vindicated, but that is the only way the misadventure in Iraq would ever make any sense.
December 28th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Just as drugs are cheaper and more available since we started pumping billions into the “war” on drugs, terrorism has become more widespread and prevalent since we started pumping billions into the “war” on terrorism. You can’t declare war on nouns. It just doesn’t work.
December 28th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Well, there’s a simple solution to that: We have to declare a war on definitions of war that don’t let us do that. Sure, it might not work with the present definition, but if the war is successful, then it will retroactively have been possible. Really, all we need to do is declare victory in this war and we’ve won it.
…Which is suspiciously similar to the tactics of many woos…
December 28th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Oh, of course, the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection that doesn’t exist.
How can people still screw that up? Iraq was not a hotbed of terrorism until the USA made it one. With all due respect, Mr. Schumacher, it is profound misunderstandings like yours that fuel the stupid, wasteful, elective war that Bush started. The electorate is full of people who have never put the pieces together on this one. We did not invade Iraq because of terrorism. We invaded it because of oil, under the thin and deceptive pretense of WMD, both of which are retarded reasons to waste a trillion dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives.
December 28th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Thanks for those statistics; this really puts our military spending in perspective. 20 million is quite a number. I think these sort of expenditures should cause both sides of the debate to re-examine the war effort.
December 28th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Just out of robo-curiosity:
How much did we spend per hour during World War II, in 1944 dollars, and how much would that translate into today’s dollars?
Didn’t the entire congress (Republicans and Democrats) give Bush the OK to go to war with Iraq?
Aren’t we still paying for World War II, the Korean War and Vietnam?
Regardless of why we went, the fact is (and I thought scientists were keen on facts) we are fighting a war in Iraq. Instead of crying about how much it costs, or looking for someone to blame, shouldn’t we focus our efforts on finding the best possible solution to this problem?
What can you do to ensure the values and principles (and especially the people) of United States of America remain intact?
…
I know, I know. I’m just being terribly naive.
December 28th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
And yet I don’t see any such re-examination ever happening. We’re either going to get out of there or be stuck for a very long time, meanwhile funding for everything else in the US gets put on the back burner :-\
December 28th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
If you are concerned about the cost of this war and use that as an excuse to end it, I wonder what your reaction would have been to WWII if you had seen its cost adjusted to today’s dollar. Those of you who oppose the war against terror are so very predictable and so lame.
December 28th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
History is repeating itself. America will become bankrupt by its war debt and become a second or third rate country just as so many powerful and great nations/empires have in the past.
December 28th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
I suggest Mr. Plait read up on the War Powers Resolution, which was passed over Nixon’s veto, when the Senate and the House of Representatives achieved the 2/3 majority on November 7, 1973.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
The House of Representatives and the Senate gave President Bush war powers via the War Powers Resolution.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
Your Iraq “war” is, in fact, a war.
December 28th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
George Somsel, nice try, but you might want to get your facts from someone other than Rush Limbaugh.
Iraq had nothing — nothing — to do with terrorism… at least, until this occupation began, and terrorists started breeding there.
This whole Iraq quagmire was manufactured from the star, and even before. WWII was a war to fight dictatorships and global aggression by a very few countries. This war on terrorism has no fixed enemy, no country to target, and it has become increasingly obvious over the past several years that there was never any intention of actually doing anything about terrorism. You may recall Bush saying that he doesn’t care about bin Laden anymore.
I would be 100% supportive of an actual campaign to fight terrorism, but I know it cannot be ended effectively (it would be like trying to wipe out all bad viruses), and in fact what this government is doing right now is not only not fighting terrorism, but is actively increasing its likelihood.
December 28th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
[…] 29Dec 07 I just got this on the Twitter wire from Phil Plait, who has the blog Bad Astronomy. LINK$5,000 per second? For Allah’s sake, we could be feeding, clothing, and educating the […]
December 28th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
“You’re doing the terrorists’ job for them.”
“George Somsel, nice try, but you might want to get your facts from someone other than Rush Limbaugh.”
Thanks Carn and BA.
I was going to comment but I can’t do any better than you two did.
I’d like to add, it’s not 20M per hour that you don’t WANT to pay, it’s 200M per hour that our grandchildren CAN’T pay.
But Haliburton and G.W. Bush will be even richer, so it’s worth it to Rush and his CEO buddies. By then, Georges kids and grandkids will be wards of the state and Rush will show his appreciation by blaming them for the circumstances that he, and his ilk, created.
However,
Let’s remember that the non-earned income crowd, like Rush, has spent billions on a PR campaign to get George, and the rest of his “think tank” pals to consistantly vote against their own pocket books, and those of their children.
When I read his posts, I’m afraid that I realize it was money well spent.
It makes me really appreciate the BA, and many others, for trying to get the message out.
Keep swinging,
rod
December 28th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Forget about WWII, Vietnam, etc. Forget even about how we got here - we are in what amounts to a quagmire and no one can agree that we are helping our cause (we have one don’t we??).
Anyway, we have changed our tactics and decided that arming our “friends” in Iraq and having our soldiers spend more time with the Iraqis at large is the right path - but what strategy does it support? I have heard so many different strategies and analysis, etc that I am sick of hearing it.
I would like for once to have someone tell me this: what is the exit criteria? Then I would like to hear what the metrics we are using to evaluate whether we are progressing toward the stated goal.
We are spending money, lives, and the credibility of this nation with no idea whether or not it is advancing our goals because we seem to have none. This kind of “leadership” will drive any organization to ruin…
December 28th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Well… that’s half of an argument, I suppose.
One could equally well downplay the costs — that’s about $600/year per U.S. citizen. Not cheap, but it’s hardly going to break the bank. For comparison, it’s less than what we spend on clothes, or about half what we spend on eating out. And it’s a whole lot less than we spend on things like rent or our cars. (see: here)
Granted, that doesn’t mean it’s worth it — but that’s exactly the question you haven’t asked: How much would it cost us not to fight?
One could argue that the benefits won’t outweigh the costs. Or one could argue that the war itself has more negative consequences than benefits, so that it wouldn’t be worthwhile at any price. But just looking at the cost in a way that makes it hard to put into perspective… I expect better from a scientist than playing on popular innumeracy like that.
(Skepterist- Quick back of the envelope. WWII cost the U.S. alone over $3 trillion (in current dollars) over less than four years — from a population of about 130,000,000 or about $6,000/person — from people who averaged less than a third of the income we make today.)
December 28th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
“You may recall Bush saying that he doesn’t care about bin Laden anymore.”
I thought that was the whole reason the US went to war in Afghanistan - to find Osama bin Laden and the other people responsible for the September 11 attacks, and bring them to justice. Then what the hell are they doing in Afghanistan? If Bush is just throwing his weight around, he should bring home the troops at once.
I remember Bush saying something particularly dense like “You don’t promote terrorism by fighting terrorism!” when questioned if the war in Iraq was increasing the global threat of terrorism. Can’t he conceive of the possibility that an unprovoked attack on a Muslim nation would make the extremists who live there want to attack his country even more? The day that we invaded Iraq was the biggest recruiting tool that Al Qaeda had ever been given.
Australia’s former Prime Minister, John Howard, was just as bad. When asked a similar question, he said (paraphrased) “The September 11 attacks and the 2002 Bali bombings happened before we invaded Iraq.” while conveniently omitting all the other attacks that happened after the invasion (like Madrid, London, Egypt, etc.)
I’m just glad that the truth about Iran’s nonexistent nuclear weapons program is out. I was worried that the Bush Administration was going to announce “Iran has nu-cu-lar weapons and could conceivably launch a missile that could possibly reach US soil in 45 minutes!” and then have history repeat itself. But then, I still think Bush has his head in the mushroom clouds.
And on a lighter note:
“This whole Iraq quagmire was manufactured from the star, and even before.”
See? This post is about astronomy!
December 28th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
You folks should really hang out at cato.org more.
They are anti-war, pure libertarian on civil rights and even have a sensible view of GW (it’s happening, but let’s be rational and not panic and keep the discussion civil). Many low wattage people try to paint them as conservative, but well, those people are typical ideologues operating on a zero level of intellect.
Here’s a look at the government’s doublespeak:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6654
And a site that tries to put the threat into some perspective:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/12/18/defeat-terrorism/
Quote: Nearly 800,000 people have died in car accidents in the last twenty years. During that time there have been exactly two Islamic terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, with less than 3,000 total fatalities. That’s more than 200 TIMES as many Americans dying in their cars as at the hands of Islamic terrorism. And yet . . .We’ve turned the whole world upside down in response to the two terrorist attacks. We’ve launched invasions, created vast new bureaucracies, shredded the Bill of Rights, compounded regulations, spent hundreds of billions of dollars, and disrupted travel and commerce. But no one is suggesting that we do 200 times as much to address the driving risk, which is 200 times greater.
Actually, I’d like to see SOMETHING done to remove some of the drivers I share my commute with from the road. Some of them should not even be allowed to drive virtual cars in video games.
— George Somsel, nice try, but you might want to get your facts from someone other than Rush Limbaugh.
Very poor form here, Phil. While I agree with you, this sort of charged rhetoric is conduct unbecoming a skeptic. Strawman, ad hominem… it’s a mess.
—I would be 100% supportive of an actual campaign to fight terrorism, but I know it cannot be ended effectively
Well, it can, but the folks with real solutions are not in charge, and never will be because they have the extreme political disadvantage of being sane.
Another paper of the relative risks of terrorism:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv27n3/v27n3-5.pdf
—(it would be like trying to wipe out all bad viruses)
Tell that to smallpox. Oh, wait, you can’t.
Nothing impossible there if you follow the research. For example, much is being done to interfere with the ability of a virus to invade new cells. With that accomplished, a virus can no longer spread in a body, and the already infected cells die off. You own defenses bat clean up. Google on “caragenins”.
The best thing is that they work on the outer membrane of the virus which is not subject to mutation, so the little bastards can’t evolve their way around it.
As an aside, read “God Is Not Great” by Christopher Hitchens to see how Islam perpetuates the spread of polio in some parts of the world.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Right on BA! There are many reasons to oppose the war, but it’s important to remind ourselves from time to time that one of them is the ridiculous waste of our money.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
For heavens sake. Bad Astronomy - you got that right. Stick to the stars and leave this stuff to Fox and Move On.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
— Then what the hell are they doing in Afghanistan?
Well, you have to be fair there. The effort in Afghanistan is a full NATO and ISAF effort with the support of many nations who sat out Iraq. Even Canadians generally support it.
We *have* caught many of the higher ups, tossed their Taliban enablers out into the wastelands and Afghani women can do unheard of things like go to school and be educated. In fact, a big part of my massive opposition to the Iraqi war is that is sucks resources from our Afghani efforts which could be a LOT better if it weren’t for Bush’s idiocy in Iraq.
Major caveat: I’d like to see the US back the **** off on their anti-drug stance there. You can’t nurse a fledgling democracy and undercut a main source of revenue (opium) at the same time. Poppy farming is the main thing staving off complete destitution for many people there, but US officials keep pressuring Karzai to crack down on poppy production. This single thing is probably *the* major driver in the Taliban’s recent resurgence. This demonstrates once again the US governments ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Personally, I think Bin Laden’s long dead.
December 29th, 2007 at 12:32 am
“Why is “war” in quotation marks? Because I don’t remember Congress ever authorizing a declaration of war as is mandated in the Constitution.”
You mean the “war” that Hillary voted to authorize? Somehow we have politicians voting to authorize wars that its citizens don’t recognize.
So lemme get this straight. All the past wars we fought where we didn’t have a congressional declaration of war were ok, but this one that they actually DID vote for isn’t? What happened to the facts? The more political this blog gets, the more respect I lose for you Phil Plait. Stick to the science, it seems that’s what you’re good at. Somehow the facts disappear when you look at politics.
So, what would you rather pay the war with? Money… or lives? I’d prefer to burn money than American Bodies any day. Compare THAT to 1944.
So now that you can’t complain we’re losing vast amounts of soldiers in the war, I guess you CAN complain about all the money we’re spending.
The point is… it’s always SOMETHING… oh yeah, don’t forget, the American populace didn’t want to go to war in Europe back then either, however, we all NOW agree that it was a good thing that needed to be done even though we lost over 400,000 of our bravest to the Nazis.
I’d rather it have been a couple trillion dollars instead. We should only be so lucky we have the money to burn instead of the blood of our soldiers.
DON’T YOU EVER FORGET THEIR SACRIFICES WERE FOR YOU. In Iraq and in Germany.
December 29th, 2007 at 12:37 am
“How much did we spend per hour during World War II, in 1944 dollars, and how much would that translate into today’s dollars?”
The question is irrelevant. The circumstances of WWII have nothing to do with the current occupation of Iraq.
“Didn’t the entire congress (Republicans and Democrats) give Bush the OK to go to war with Iraq?”
No. A majority of Democrats voted AGAINST the war resolution.
“Regardless of why we went, the fact is (and I thought scientists were keen on facts) we are fighting a war in Iraq.”
Um, no one denies this “fact,” doofus.
“Instead of crying about how much it costs, or looking for someone to blame, shouldn’t we focus our efforts on finding the best possible solution to this problem?”
That is exactly what we’re doing. Republicans think the best possible solution is to throw trillions of dollars into a bottomless money pit and occupy Iraq forever. Democrats would prefer to withdraw troops sometime before that.
“What can you do to ensure the values and principles (and especially the people) of United States of America remain intact?”
Off the bat, I’d say restoring basic civil liberties that Republicans have strip-mined since the war began would be a good start.
“I know, I know. I’m just being terribly naive.”
Naive is a generous word for what you are.
December 29th, 2007 at 12:53 am
“One could equally well downplay the costs — that’s about $600/year per U.S. citizen. Not cheap, but it’s hardly going to break the bank. For comparison, it’s less than what we spend on clothes, or about half what we spend on eating out. And it’s a whole lot less than we spend on things like rent or our cars.”
With the sort of perspective that $180 billion down the drain just isn’t worth losing sleep over, doesn’t it make it harder for conservatives to scream and moan about how important those tax cuts are, or how big those spending bills in Congress are getting? As long as it’s less than we spend on rent, just shrug your shoulders and move on, right?
What you have failed to leave out, of course, is that that $600 per year per every single person in America is BORROWED money. That’s on TOP of the several trillion dollars in BORROWED money that Bush and the Congress spent already. And none of these amounts have even been added to the deficit totals.
I guess the definition of fiscal responsibility these days is racking up tons of debt you get to pass along for your kids and their kids to pay off.
December 29th, 2007 at 1:01 am
The cost of war for our children and grandchildren will be far MORE than if we are not at war now. What is the price of their lives? I say far more than the money we are spending today.
December 29th, 2007 at 1:02 am
“You mean the “war” that Hillary voted to authorize?”
Yep, that’s the one.
“All the past wars we fought where we didn’t have a congressional declaration of war were ok, but this one that they actually DID vote for isn’t? What happened to the facts?”
I think a better question might be, what happened to the WMD’s? What happened to Osama Bin Laden or the people who actually attacked us? Oh yeah, you don’t want to discuss those “facts.” You’d rather play fast and loose with the definition of the word, “facts.”
Because Congress didn’t pass a declaration of war. It’s bad enough they authorized the use of force, but that’s hardly the same thing. And no where is it written that we have to automatically like everything Congress does, is it? Do YOU, particularly with the Democrats in charge?
Nor do we have to like all wars. I remember pretty starkly how vociferous and violent the opposition to Clinton’s military actions in Kosovo. The same Republicans who are now arguing that we must never question our leaders when troops are in harm’s way sure didn’t feel that way ten years ago.
So which is it? Must we all as Americans always accept uncritically every action approved by Congress? Or can we as Americans question our leaders and criticize them when we don’t like what they do? Which is the “fact” you’d like to agree with?
“So now that you can’t complain we’re losing vast amounts of soldiers in the war, I guess you CAN complain about all the money we’re spending.”
I think most of us here would agree that we’d rather not be losing either in an armed conflict that was based on shoddy evidence at BEST and outright deception at worst and that has made the world much less safe from terrorism and religious fundamentalism.
December 29th, 2007 at 1:08 am
“The cost of war for our children and grandchildren will be far MORE than if we are not at war now. What is the price of their lives? I say far more than the money we are spending today”
The threat from global warming is much more real, much more damaging, and much more immediate than the HIGHLY unlikely event of a terrorist attack on any given person. Isn’t the price of fighting global warming now a lot less than the price of the lives of our children, digger1954? Wouldn’t it make more sense to be spending that money on something that will actually affect ALL of us in the not too distant future?
December 29th, 2007 at 2:13 am
I suggest we make the Bush family, Halliburton, the Neo-con thinktanks and apologists & the Israeli lobby all _personally_ financially liable and for paying the entire cost - from now and paying back.
What a COLOSSAL waste of money!
Worse what an even more colossal waste of innocent lives - mostly Iraqi civilans, women & children.
How many times could we have landed on the Moon or Mars for that sorta money?
December 29th, 2007 at 2:24 am
Here’s what we should do now :
First END the war - admit defeat, apologise to the world and get the heck outta there!
Next Bush the lesser along with his various Neo-Con toadies and puppet-masters should all be tried for war crimes for launching this illegal invasion. And, once convicted, hung like Saddam & the Imperial Japanese WWII war-leaders were - for the same reasons.
Then every Jewish organisation that supported Israel and its not-insignificant role in this invasion should be made to pay 30 % of its income to paying back the damages and rebuild Iraq & Palestine.
And finally a new clause similar to the one America forced into Japan’s post WWII constituition should be added - it should read
NO MORE VIETNAMS OR IRAQS OR BAY-OF-PIGS EVER AGAIN!!!
AMERICA IS HEREBY BARRED FOM INVADING OTHER NATIONS!
AMERICA WILL DISARM & (like tehSWiss) DECLARE NEUTRALITY and only EVER defend itself from actual physical attack and invasion not counting scare campaigns by criminal whackos (Those can be handled through lwaw enforcementand diplomacy.)
NEVER AGAIN - that could be the only positive thing to come out of this Iraq debacle.
I hate to say it but like many (most even) people around the world I’m hoping the US is beaten so badly, sadly and horribly that it learns to finally do the right thing and
LEAVE OTHER NATIONS THE (**EXPLETIVES**) ALONE!
STOP invading other nations esp. ones like Iraq that actually couldn’t hurt it…
… If that happens, if tehneo-cons and Isreali lobby are utterly crushe dand never again threaten the restof tehplanet .. then maybe, justmaybe it”ll have been worth it.
SIGH.
———————–
All naturally my humble opinion - but one I know is shared by many intelligent folks globally.
December 29th, 2007 at 2:38 am
Corrected here coz I can’t correct above : (PHIL PLait, pleasegive us any editing ability here, please!)
—–
I hate to say it but like many (most even) people around the world I’m hoping the US is beaten so badly, sadly and horribly that it learns to finally do the right thing and
LEAVE OTHER NATIONS THE (**EXPLETIVES**) ALONE!
STOP invading other nations esp. ones like Iraq that actually couldn’t hurt it…
… If that happens, if the neo-cons and Israeli lobby are utterly crushed and never again threaten the rest of the planet .. then maybe,
… just maybe … it”ll have been worth it.
SIGH.
PS. Yes, OBL is almost certainly dead by now - probably of natural causes (typhoid?) I’d say at least 80 % probablity of that. AQ derives istsupportfrom Amercia’s war which gives it the undeserved credit and prestiege it now has -take away the “war” and you’ll most likely see the Muslim world come to its senses following the US doing the same.
Incidentally, believe it or not, I *love* America and Americans generally. I’ve been there, got friends there and think much of what it does is a fantastic, excellent, shining beacon to the rest of the world. My favourite author - Isaac Asimov - was Jewish-Amercian, my political hero Martin Luther King Junior is American and consider the Moon landing - Apollo space programme - about the greatest human achivenment ever. So NO I do _not_ hate your country - just hate the deranged leadership that is currently destroying it and all its best aspects. To see the United Sattes of America going over the cliff the way it is now is inexpressibly depressing, infuriatingand tragic.
You can be - should be - so very much better than this.
That you are not is due mainly to the detestable stupidity, counter-productive brutality, staggering arrogance and willful ignorance of the Religious Wrong, Neo-cons, Corporate robber-barons and the Israeli-Jewish lobby.
———————–
All naturally my humble opinion - but one I know is shared by many intelligent folks globally.
December 29th, 2007 at 3:09 am
I really hate the one-post, one-note wonders who always pitch up on threads like this, spewing drivel. They waste time, space, electrons and oxygen.
I’m talking about the sad, demented, mentally-challenged induhviduals who say things like “The cost of war for our children and grandchildren will be far MORE than if we are not at war now”.
HOW MANY TIMES has it been pointed out on this very thread that terrorism had bugger-all to do with the invasion of Iraq?
If you dispute this fact, show us evidence. Don’t just assume, without any evidence (in fact, with much evidence to the contrary) that killing tens of thousands* of civilians half-a-world away somehow keeps you safe.
If only the hordes bed-wetters (”Oooh, the scary Brown man will kill me in my sleep!”) would restrict themselves to pissing all over their own sleeping arrangements, instead of also doing so all over the internet. And worse still, over the ballot papers.
—
*) Most of the 700,000 Iraqi deaths were not at the hands of US forces. But of course, if the US had not invaded and destroyed the country’s entire civil society, the chaos and sectarian violence that did cause those deaths, would never have occurred.
December 29th, 2007 at 3:26 am
“If only the hordes bed-wetters (”Oooh, the scary Brown man will kill me in my sleep!”) would restrict themselves to pissing all over their own sleeping arrangements, instead of also doing so all over the internet. And worse still, over the ballot papers.”
It’s not just a bit ironic, of course, that the same party of people who lay claim to being both brave AND fiscally responsible are so piss-in-their-pants scared of terrists (as Bush would say) despite the overwhelming unlikelihood that they will ever even be in the same city as a terrist (aren’t most of these people from red states - when was the last time you heard of a terrist attack in Kansas?) - that they are literally willing to spend all of their own tax dollars (as long as you don’t touch Paris Hilton’s income), their children’s tax dollars, and their grandchildren’s tax dollars for the Big Ol’ Gubmint to protect them. This would be the same gubmit that they also argue can’t actually do anything right. How fiscally responsible is that?
December 29th, 2007 at 3:40 am
“For heavens sake. Bad Astronomy - you got that right. Stick to the stars and leave this stuff to Fox and Move On.”
I was kidding about that, by the way. I was making fun of the fact that people are constantly complaining that not every single post on this site is about astronomy. This is Phil’s blog and he can write about any topic he wants. Read this.
December 29th, 2007 at 4:31 am
What a bunch of candy-a$$es. Quit focusing on what the media tells you, and look at the improvements we have accomplished in Iraq. Do you watch your neighbor beat the crap out of his wife and kids and just turn the other cheek? America, whether you like it or not, is the cop who tries to prevent chaos in the first place, but all too often cleans up the worlds mess with blood from our citizens.
Maybe you should move to Canada, BA. You can be a wimp there and no one will care. Stick to science was good advice.
December 29th, 2007 at 5:22 am
And what, exactly would the effect on the USA be if Wall Street got wiped out tomorrow by any means? We’ll assume terrorism, but it really doesn’t matter if it is a terrorist bomb, an asteroid strike, a sudden epidemic, tsunami, earthquake, or 150000 bankers and stock brokers who suddenly retire simultaneously.
1. For a few days, there is a minor interruption in stock trading and banking. Yes, MINOR - every bank/brokerage/business of note has backup data, backup data centres, backup backups. The banking networks are built to withstand global nuclear war, a blip on Wall Street would be irritating, but far from the end of the world. Wall Street has been prepared for this sort of thing for a LONG, LONG time… Long before Al Qaeda. The blip would be something like a few days of impromptu bank holidays. The US economy will not collapse, cats won’t sleep with dogs, Britney will still be a skank, and life will go on.
2. People would die (except the retire scenario). Emergency services would be strained. This would cause stress in the nearby population.
3. Infrastructure may be destroyed. There would be a cost to rebuild, if it was decided to rebuild
4. If it could somehow be perverted into looking like a terrorist attack (an asteroid strike could be spun to look like some weird terrorist bomb, a natural epidemic could be perverted to look like a terrorist biological weapon), there would be worldwide political instability as everyone waits for the US government to shout “Yee Haw!” and strap on its six-guns to go stomp some uninterested countries. This would have the greatest worldwide cost as everyone would have to be alert militarily, waiting to see what will happen next… will the US invade, will they nuke?
5. Religious yahoos would crawl out from every rock claiming it is divine retribution for the decadent ways of the USA. This would impede the proper functioning of the US government as it would taint decision making.
6. It would give an opportunity for the EU and China to truly emerge as world economic superpowers.
The WTC attack took out a number of primary financial data centres, and the only real cost to the US was the lives, the clean up, and the war which goes on today. I believe the US casualty list for the war now exceeds the casualty list for the attack, so in answer to your question:
Would cost alot more if they hit Wall Street on our own soil
No, it would not cost a lot more than if they hit Wall Street on our own soil. In fact, it would cost demonstrably and substantially less than a protracted war would cost.
December 29th, 2007 at 5:32 am
What can you do to ensure the values and principles (and especially the people) of United States of America remain intact?
What values and principles might those be?
“Inside every sand-nigger is an American struggling to get out!”
“Praise Jesus and pass the ammunition!”
“Kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out!”
That’s what the war on terrorism looks like to me. I’m sorry, but I really don’t see how American principles and values are being furthered in stomping some country that had nothing to do with anything.
I do, however, see why Iraq was chosen - large oil reserves, and if the government can be replaced with a US puppet, the US ensures a supply of oil. That’s a very old-school reason for going to war. I’d have a lot more respect for the US government if they’d just come out and say that.
Afghanistan is a bit different. They truly were harbouring Al Qaeda. Yes, the Taliban was put there by the US due to short-sighted thinking, but I don’t think many people disagree with what is going on there.
What the US is doing is truly terrorism. The US government wants to create fear of its awesomeness. Fear us, or we’ll kick your arse. Is that truly an American principle or value?
December 29th, 2007 at 5:34 am
Big_Bro: Just ask the average Iraqi how grateful he is that the wise and benevolent US has come to his aid. You’ll obviously be shocked at his reply.
And do you honestly think that ths US has done anything good for the world at large, when it hasn’t been in its own self-interest to do so? What, are you 12?
Not even US intervention in WWII was entirely selfless, but it was thousands of times more noble than anything they have done before or since.
December 29th, 2007 at 5:45 am
Evolving Squid: I believe the US casualty list for the war now exceeds the casualty list for the attack…
I’m afraid you’re correct: AFAIK, the current number of US military deaths due to the occupation (no, it’s not a war, it’s an occupation!) is around 4,000. Add in civilian contractor/mercenary deaths, and it may be double that. Already 33% more than the casualties of 9/11, and still climbing.
Furthermore, the number of Iraqis murdered, either directly or indirectly, outnumbers the 9/11 death-toll by over 200-1! Will someone please tell me why one Yank is worth 200 Iraqis? 200 Iraqis who had sweet nothing to do with 9/11 in the first place?
December 29th, 2007 at 5:49 am
Big Bro was that meant to be satire?
Megamoze :
“It’s not just a bit ironic, of course, that the same party of people who lay claim to being both brave AND fiscally responsible are so piss-in-their-pants scared of terrists (as Bush would say) despite the overwhelming unlikelihood that they will ever even be in the same city as a terrist (aren’t most of these people from red states - when was the last time you heard of a terrist attack in Kansas?)”
Dunno about Kansas but wasn’t there a terrorist attack in Oaklahoma by some anti-Gummint Wrong-wing militia X~ian nutter called Tim McViegh?
Were any abortion clinics in Kansas attacked by Xian terrists with real live doctors killed in the name of every sperm being sacred? Ie. so that rapists can happily foster kids on unwilling mothers from their rapes and unwanted embryoes in an overpopulated world are forced into life creating misery for all?
Funny how those sort of non-Muslim terrorists around the world get forgotten while only those nasty brown Arabs become targets for US slaughtering ain’t it …?
(Trivia qu. for the week - what religion first came up with suicide bombers? Scroll all the way down for answer ..)
Now, fact is that if George W. Bush and his Neo-con henchmen were seen swinging from the end of a hangman’s rope we all know that about two-thirds of the Earth’s populace incl.a sizeable minority of Americans would probably cheer and celebrate. That in itself speaks volumes on how the US is going in the struggle for hearts and minds - which is the really key battleground in the supposed clash against Islamic extremism?
Nobody on the planet - ‘cepting only a few of themselves - appointed the US to be “Global Cop” - the United Nations was meant to hold that role. Perhaps its time the USA decided to be a good global citizen and transform the UN into the democratic effective, “toothy” global government we need rather than being today’s rogue superpower that embarrasses itself and its allies alike through its ham-handed invasions and torture camps …
20 million $ per hour!
What a criminal waste of money,..
480 million $ per day!
What a criminal stupid counter-productive waste of lives…
3,360 million $ per week!
Can someone please tell me why the blazes Bush the Lesser hasn’t been impeached in disgrace yet???
————-
Trivia Qu. : What religion first came up with suicide bombers?
Answer : Hinduism with the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka.
(Funny how we hardly ever hear about them & the evils of Hinduism eh?)
December 29th, 2007 at 6:05 am
StevoR writes:
[[Then every Jewish organisation that supported Israel and its not-insignificant role in this invasion should be made to pay 30 % of its income to paying back the damages and rebuild Iraq & Palestine.]]
Gosh darn those Jews! They just have a stranglehold on American policy, don’t they? And you forgot the fact that they drink the blood of Christian babies. Don’t leave that out.
December 29th, 2007 at 6:14 am
I was, in principle, in favor of the Iraq war, not primarily because I believed in Saddam’s WMDs (although that didn’t strike me as unlikely, considering he had already used them on the Kurds and Shi’ites), but because I’m in favor of deposing genocidal dictatorships. But it should have been done competently. If it had, Iraq would be better off and a majority of Americans would not now be opposed to the war. America has run successful occupations before, in Germany and Japan.
1. We should have had at least three times as many troops as we actually used. The Administration didn’t think there would be an insurgency following the war, which was just plain stupid.
2. We should have disarmed the Iraqi soldiers before firing them. Not doing so was just plain stupid.
3. We should have suppressed the looting. That goes back to the inadequate number of troops noted above.
4. To suppress IED manufacture, we needed to have house-to-house searches, no matter how many people it offends — and like the Israelis, we should have demolished any house being used as a bomb factory. That way Dad would say to junior, “No, Rashid, if you make bombs here you cannot live in this house!” instead of “Allah bless you for striking at the infidels, Rashid.”
At this point, the American people will simply not support tripling the number of troops in Iraq, which would probably require a draft. With the present number, we can’t win. The sensible thing to do at this point, therefore, is to just get out. We can leave a token force behind to help the local government with anti-terrorist raids, but the next Iraqi administration will probably kick it out after a year or so.
December 29th, 2007 at 6:53 am
This has now become a truly disgusting thread.
As an African-American. I’m incredibly appalled, Phil, that you would allow such posts on your blog. Many of the responses are amazingly offensive. You (and these posters) should be ashamed of yourselves.
Phil - your a tremendous scientist and I will continue to respect you for that. But your blog and it’s name-calling leftists have turned what USED to be a terrific science blog into a cesspool of antisemitism and racial bigotry - couched in the name of “world peace” where an ideal that we somehow can all get along singing “kum-by-yah” is pushed.
Sorry Phil. I’m not participating anymore. You have the right to write it, but that doesn’t mean I have to READ it.
Suspending my subscription…
Chris Williams (The one who grew up in Boulder not far from where you now live)
December 29th, 2007 at 7:31 am
A very heated discussion once again. Some points that have not been made here, yet.
The U.S. has a history of fighting their wars on other’s soil. In Korea and Vietnam we fought the Commies on the land of the poor farmers. We burned jungle instead of going head on with Russia. The poor suffered.
We also have a long history of supporting dictators and helping overthrow democratically elected governments. We gave Saddam weapons, guns and money for years. We had our CIA train Osama. These dogs on leashes, eventually get cocky and turn on us. In Pakistan we have given billions to their military dictator to fight terrorism, a war he has lost, because the military is very sympathetic to the terrorist there. Pakistan is now in even bigger trouble than it was. Whole regions of the country are now under Taliban control. When our enemies crossed the border into Pakistan, we had to stop and watch them escape, out of respect for Pakistan’s dictator.
This is poor strategy to say the least. We should have stayed in Afghanistan and finished the job! We should have not respected the border and followed the enemy. We should have made our pet dictator hold free elections, and made sure they were free elections.
I agree that Saddam was a very bad guy. I agreed that he was a very bad guy when we were giving him the chemical and biological weapons to use on Iran. Supporting dictators has only exploded in our face. We tend to support them because they agree to fight what we perceive as a worse threat, Communism and Terrorism. This strategy has proven to be a bad idea, and we still refuse to learn.
December 29th, 2007 at 7:39 am
You know, I remember when I was a kid that I always hoped to go live in the USA when I got older.
Now that I AM older and able to leave, I’m not sure anymore. I hate all this overly common Bush bashing has become a tiring cliché in comedy sketches and comics (seriously, it’s not funny anymore. We know, he sucks. a million folks made numbers about him before you.)… But the economy stinks so much and everything was destroyed so wildly by your current administration that I wouldn’t dream of staying there for anything longer a 2 weeks vacation now (Which I am sure I’d still enjoy). I think I’ll stay in Canada and just drop out of this crazy province I live in…
December 29th, 2007 at 8:18 am
Michelle: Before you could even begin your no-doubt enjoyable vacation, you’d probably have to queue for hours at some airport being fingerprinted, photographed, profiled and probed by some minimum-wage dolt with delusions of adequacy brought on by his “Department of Fatherland Security” badge.
December 29th, 2007 at 9:01 am
ChrisW
Looks like the N-bomb got dropped, but it was used as an example of ignorant thinking, not as a direct insult, I wouldn’t take that personally.
Don’t give that word any more power than it deserves.
December 29th, 2007 at 9:52 am
Sigh…
More political drivel.
December 29th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
What a conundrum!
When I post something political that I think is important, the comments tend to get a bit out of control. Sometimes more than others. I see the same arguments over and over again– I should stay out of politics, I’m wrong, blah blah blah. I find it ironic that almost invariably the people who make these comments seem to not have read what I wrote– or they have read in their own prejudices into my words.
As I said above: Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism until the US went there, except for the very conscious and deliberate conflation of the two by the Bush Administration.
The comparison to WWII is ridiculous, demeaning, an insulting to the ideas and sacrifices made during that world war. The “war on terror” is almost completely manufactured, and the price we are paying is incomparable to WWII.
The idea that this thread, and its comments, are somehow racist is also silly. The one comment was done as a satirical example of a mindless reaction, and not real thought on the topic. I am unhappy with the language used despite that — I’m looking at you, Evolving Squid — but the point he was making was valid and not racist. Quite the opposite.
Chris Williams, if that offends you, then I suggest you take some introspection time. Accusing me of being racist and antisemitic is patently ridiculous.
I am not sure why so many people shut their minds off when dealing with political issues, though I suspect the abject polarization of this country by the current Administration has a lot to do with it. But that does not mean I will back off from posting such things, and in fact indicates that I need to be stronger about it.
It also means I have to moderate comments better. I have marked many as spam and deleted many others that were from obvious (and not so obvious) trolls. I will continue to do so, and I will look into more advanced moderation techniques as well. I won’t cut off the ability of readers to comment, but with freedom comes responsibility, and if comments don’t offer that responsibility, I will take whatever actions I feel are suitable.
December 29th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Mr. Bad,
You also have another conundrum on your hands. There is only one remaining viable anti-war candidate that also understands the economic peril faced by our country. But you just dissed him for being naive on evolution (which he is.)
So you have unwittingly helped the military-industrial complex get their wish — two nominated candidates who will continue the war and ignore the cost to current and future generations. I agree with you that Dr. Ron Paul is off base on a number of issues, but on the life and death issues including foreign policy, the economy, wasteful government spending, protecting the internet and the rise of corporatism, he is spot on. I am hoping that some members of the scientific community will join me in holding their noses and voting for the candidate that will get our country back on track. Then we can elect citizens to congress to support this new direction but who also bring more knowledge to bear on vital topics relating to science, medicine, telecom and so forth.
December 29th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
What I have found odd about the war, are news about US soldiers dieing there. It’s suppose to be a war, so why is it a news when soldiers die? Now seeing the numbers, 4000 US soldiers to 700 000 Iraqis (propably alot of them civilians), that doesn’t look like nurbers of a war, it’s more like a massacre, with few victims fighting back.
So that’s 20 000 000 in hour for massacre. Thank god I’m not paying (being finnish that is)
December 29th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Rock Howard, Obama is and was against the war. I’m sure he also understands the economic peril the US is in. But I guess he’s from the “wrong” party…
Oh, and Hannu: you are paying too, in this globalized economy.
December 29th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
I would like to remind Big Bro that Canada has been a part of the NATO forces fighting to restore order in Afghanistan since the very beginning.Many Canadian soldiers have been killed and wounded in this campagain. America went into Afghanistan, toppled the goverment,then moved into Iraq.They left Afghanistan in a state of chaos and left it up to the NATO coalition to clean up the mess.
December 29th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
[…] Bad Astronomy Blog » Terror: $20 million per hour references in this blog to the cost of the Iraq “war” being 11 million dollars every hour. That’s a gross, vast amount of money. And it turns out it’s wrong: it’s too low. The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are closer to 20 million dollar (tags: bush iraq war) […]
December 29th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
All that money and yet the soldiers and vets that are risking their lives for this are in near poverty and having their benefits cut to save money.
December 29th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
In response to the BA’s most recent post on this thread: One of the scariest trends of the last 6 years is how the right wants any opposition to their fearless leader silenced at all costs (see the recent FCC ruling, for the current example). It doesn’t matter if the Constitution is shredded in the process; the only thing they care about is that the Republican Party remains on top. I don’t think any of them have any real clue what their leaders are doing, or would care if they did.
December 29th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Why is “war” in quotation marks? Because I don’t remember Congress ever authorizing a declaration of war as is mandated in the Constitution.
Nor will you Phil. When you become a member nation of The UN, you agree to play by a set of rules governing declaration of war. Since this time, the Pentagon has bent the rules by simply calling warfare a “police action” and simply asking Congress for money instead oy using the War Powers Resolution..
megamoze - The White House never said that the the Iraq War Pt II was
to protect us from the threat of terorism. The so-called “war on terrorism” are coinciding but separate events. The official reason for the Iraq action was because secret intelligence showed special info above and beyond the world’s experts regarding Hussein’s WMDs. This, of course, was revealed as a fabrication. If you read the document as originally presented to congress, that is the simnple reason. WMDs, not terrorism. Course, once the WMD thing was found as falsehood, the objective changed to removal of Saddam. Once that occured, the notion became vague entrapment, insurgents, and profiteering. But, terrorism? Nope. That part’s 100% media and misinformed public.
Gary-
“Would cost alot more if they hit Wall Street on our own soil.”
Whichever “they” your referring too is more likely to do this BECAUSE of the Iraq invasion, not in spite of it. War on Iraq quells worldwide terrorism how, exactly?
Skep-
“Didn’t the entire congress (Republicans and Democrats) give Bush the OK to go to war with Iraq?”
A popular misconception sponsored by candidated up for re-election. But that’s not how it worked. Congress was asked to fund the removal of WMDs which they were told in fact existed when they, in fact, did not. Congress was lied to by the Executive Branch.
Clint-
“How much would it cost us not to fight?”
How much would it cost not to search for WMDs that don’t exist or capture a man that’s already dead? What are you REALLY asking we do? promote continual warfare? For what reason. Your answer is $0. It would cost us nothing to not fight. Same thing it cost us before the WMDs were “invented”.
k9-
If you look at where the money went, yes Bush had little interest in Osama Bin Laden. His father’s nemesis was much more important. Relative to Saddam, very little $ have been expended on Osama/AL Qaeda by America. An American nemesis, sure, but simply was not a Bush/Cheney nemesis.
Light -
“You mean the “war” that Hillary voted to authorize? ”
You don’t have the facts straight. Go back and read what it was congress authorized. It was not a vote to go to war. That’s misinformed rhetoric.
“I’d prefer to burn money than American Bodies any day.” And then there’s the 3rd option. NEITHER.
“the American populace didn’t want to go to war in Europe” Yup. Until, a little thing happened and Japan declared war on the US. This compares to Iraq how, exactly?
“DON’T YOU EVER FORGET THEIR SACRIFICES WERE FOR YOU”. How is War in Iraq for me? American life would somehow be better if those WMDs HAD existed and we weren’t lied to? Those troops have died and America is somehow better off for it? Based on what? Imagine that philosophy carried to its conclusion.
December 29th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Clint -
Quick back of the envelope:
146,703,000 taxpayers (Bureau of Labor Statistic Nov 2007) into 500 trillion plus the estimate on the interest on the debt (currently estimated at 376 Billion) puts the figure closer to $6000 per person.
But, this war is DEFICIT FINANCED. It can not be amortized the way WW2 was and the interest on the debt will likely be there for decades. That $20 million/hour is geometrically progressing, not stable, so, to do the math, you need an algebraic function. $20 million/hour plus the interest on the debt will actually equate out to several times the cost of WW2 adjusted to the date we return to balance. It’s already a multi-generational debt but add in the fact that other unique pressures will likely soon tax our infrastructure and the picture’s a bit gloomy. My feeling is that it’s a bit naive to think the US will be having glory days down the road. As was obvious from the start, Iraq will hang over our country not just morally but economically for some time. History fans will point out that such is the fate of all nations eventually.
Course to see the real cost, factor in that it slowed the US economy, caused spiraling inflation and dropped the dollar’s value in the world market. To put it into further perspective, the budget was not only balanced less than decade ago, it was in surplus. D’oh!
(sorry for the speling errors earlyer)
December 29th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
I am sorry if my phrasing was taken other than as intended. The specific line I used was a modification of a well-known line from Full Metal Jacket and was written that way specifically to represent fuzzy, addle-pated thinking that seems to pass for “values” in the United States.
If anyone took it as anything other than that, well, I’m sorry, but I think you should grow a thicker skin. Honestly, when I wrote it, I truly thought the point I was making was so blatantly obvious that it couldn’t be taken any other way.
December 29th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Oh, and if BA thinks the comment needs to be editted, I’ll be offended for about 10 seconds, but I’ll get over it
December 29th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
God Bless America
December 30th, 2007 at 1:14 am
Do people honestly think a Democrat President will take this in a different direction? The thing that gets me, is this invasion into Iraq was based on there being WMD in Iraq. This was proven to be faulty intelligence. Bush ignored this, changed direction and tried to connect Saddam to 9/11. This was a blatant lie. To put it mildly, Clinton was impeached for lying about a sex act. Bush lied about leading a nation to war. Now, just how many were killed by Clinton’s lying? Zero. Bush’s lie has led to the deaths of anywhere between 500,000 and 1,000,000 people. Yet the majority Democrat congress has done nothing to impeach him. Instead they have continued to fund this war. A Democrat in the Oval Office will not change direction, at least in my opinion. Politicians may say one thing to get elected, but as soon as they are in, those promises fly out the window. The last person I heard say that they will bring the troops home was none other than Ron Paul.
December 30th, 2007 at 1:29 am
BTW, most Canadians do not support troop involvement in Afghanistan beyond 2009, which is the scheduled end of their NATO commitment. I do not equate lack of public support for this war with a lack of support for our troops. We need to remember they are brave men and women putting their lives on the line in a war that is not very well defined. It is a War on Terror. When I lived in Edmonton, a city with a large Canadian Forces Base, the street from the International Airport, 40 km south of the city, to the military base was lined with yellow ribbons every time a mission ended.
December 30th, 2007 at 3:16 am
Is a US dollar still worth anything?
December 30th, 2007 at 7:19 am
@Stuart: Are you kidding? I’d take my car, a train or a bus.
My feet are made to stay close to the ground and not up in the airs. I don’t care if it takes hours more, I still want to stay grounded!
And the customs are WAY faster there too.
And less canceled trips and late nonsenses
December 30th, 2007 at 8:48 am
We *have* caught many of the higher ups, tossed their Taliban enablers out into the wastelands and Afghani women can do unheard of things like go to school and be educated.
The situation of women in Afghanistan is hardly better than during the Taliban rule. Most of the country is governed by the same warlords, they just switched sides, and the south has fallen back to Taliban. You can’t call the current government exactly liberal, either. The biggest difference between the Northern Alliance and Taliban is ethnicity, both are equally brutal. The fact that they’re “our” side don’t make them good (except in media). Finally, almost every week we hear about major civilian deaths in NATO bombings. Nothing can increase the support of Taliban more than that.
December 30th, 2007 at 9:34 am
The war’s in Iraq and Afghanistan are a pittance compared to that wasted on mythology worship. Though these war’s can easily be tied to mythology I will, for the sake of argument, give them a pass. =)
December 30th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Remember, boys and girls:
* $35 billion to send sick children to the doctor: BAD.
* Unlimited funds to send Iraqis to their graves: GOOD.
December 30th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Ray: I’m not sure it’s about which is good versus bad. The fact that we have spent so much money on the war basically is the reason why there are programs like that which have to be cut. If I were in congress I’d vote down such a proposal, but not because I want to. I’d say it comes down to “We can’t because we don’t have the money because of what bush has gotten us into. We’re bleeding dry to begin with and that’s why we can’t spare a penny for research or social programs.”
In any case, the problem is that there’s no way out of the war in Iraq that doesn’t involve either loosing a lot of lives and money, dragging the thing on even longer or allowing any semblance of control to fall apart and have the country become even worse than it was to start out with and likely a provence of Iran.
Great… Yeah, I’m not going to debate what we should do with Iraq now, because I think just about all the options from “Bring the troops home” to “Stay the course” generally suck pretty badly and I don’t have an answer to it.
December 30th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
I think pulling the troops out en-masse will create a huge vacuum that will lead to a genocide far worse than anything we have seen before in my lifetime.
December 30th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
“Oh, and Hannu: you are paying too, in this globalized economy.”
Yeah, I know that. I just like to… you know… ignore it!
December 30th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
“I think pulling the troops out en-masse will create a huge vacuum that will lead to a genocide far worse than anything we have seen before in my lifetime.”
Maybe. But that’s what they said about leaving Viet Nam…who is now a valuable trading partner of the US. Personally, I think we have already created the power vacuum in Iraq. The main difference with Viet Nam and Iraq is that in this one, we started the civil war. How that fights terrorism is beyond me.
December 30th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
I feel incredibly lucky to be living in New Zealand, with a Prime Minister who flatly refused to be part of the Iraq occupation. Trying to gather as much as I can from both sides of the coin, it seems so compellingly obvious that this is a charade of personal gain for a small group of people (silver haired males, at that). I don’t understand how anyone can justify innumerable life, for a war on something that has been occurring for as long as anyone can remember. If this was truly a “war on terrorism” and was deserving of that moniker, the current economic and political systems of most predominantly white countries would have to be re-worked. There’s terrorism in every major company and industry, far worse and far more damaging than any suicide bomber, but the cost tends be the destruction of human lives over the long term, rather than the short. Oh, I should mention, I’m a socialist.
Most pro-war arguments I’ve been privy too have been turgid repetition of “facts and figures” of malign influence, generally ending in “Saddam was bad and we got him and if we didn’t he would have kept killing people nyer-nyer.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but, the policies and people these folks support are doing eerily similar, but now it’s a good thing?
The unfortunate part, is that everyone is now in far too deep to rectify the damage that should not have been done, and only time is going to tell.
December 30th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Icamefrommonkeys?, one of the US’s prime allies just assassinated his political rival (OK, he blames it on Al-Qaida…never mind the fact that his own soldiers were video taped hosing down the crime scene, thus eliminated all forensic evidence). I wonder how the Bushies will spin this one?
I thought we didn’t tolerate despots?
December 31st, 2007 at 8:12 am
BA posts:
[[The “war on terror” is almost completely manufactured, and the price we are paying is incomparable to WWII.]]
The way we’ve gone about it might accurately be described as “completely manufactured,” but I hope you don’t conclude from that there is no danger, or even only minor danger, from Al Qaeda and far-right Islamic extremists. Both the Sunni crazies (bin Laden et al.) and the Shi’ite crazies (mostly in Iran) want to forcibly extend their geographic control as far as possible. I believe AQ has already said that large parts of Spain should be given back to muslim control (like they didn’t steal it themselves in the 7th and 8th centuries). We do need to fight these people, even if it doesn’t really measure up to a “war.”
Yet.
Needless to say, this doesn’t mean we have to treat all muslims, or all middle easterners, as enemies. One of the few things President Bush has done right in this whole business is to stress, again and again, that this is not a war against Islam (even though initially calling it a “crusade” was a spectacularly incompetent way to show that)…
December 31st, 2007 at 8:17 am
Hannu writes:
[[What I have found odd about the war, are news about US soldiers dieing there. It’s suppose to be a war, so why is it a news when soldiers die? Now seeing the numbers, 4000 US soldiers to 700 000 Iraqis (propably alot of them civilians), that doesn’t look like nurbers of a war, it’s more like a massacre, with few victims fighting back.
So that’s 20 000 000 in hour for massacre. Thank god I’m not paying (being finnish that is)]]
You are assuming the US is doing all the killing. Why don’t you try adding up all the civilian casualties from bombings by Al Qaeda in Iraq and its pals. You might be surprised at the results.
I’m serious — go through back issues of the papers in the last few years and add up the casualties from muslim-on-muslim violence. Then compare it to US-caused casualties. Then distinguish acts which targeted soldiers from those which targeted civilians. It wasn’t the US that blew up a crowd of kids who had gathered to get candy from American troops, nor has the US used any car bombs, massacred villagers, or “ethnically cleansed” neighborhoods and whole cities.
You can say, correctly, that most of the violence would not have happened if the US hadn’t intervened. Yes, it’s true, you can suppress civil war a long time if you run a tightly controlled dictatorship. Look at Tito and Yugoslavia. That doesn’t mean that removing dictators is a bad thing.
December 31st, 2007 at 8:25 am
Icame writes:
[[There’s terrorism in every major company and industry, far worse and far more damaging than any suicide bomber, but the cost tends be the destruction of human lives over the long term, rather than the short. Oh, I should mention, I’m a socialist.]]
No kidding. I don’t think anyone else these days would make the “capitalism = violence” remark. It’s so obviously stupid from any point of view other than extreme Marxist.
December 31st, 2007 at 11:23 am
Well every one has their opinions, myself included. I’d like to see the world become a better place, and sometimes that means choosing what you think is best out of a list of crappy options. Take the upcoming presidential elections as an example. And I forget who posted it above, but seriously, neutrality is a cop-out and nothing to be proud of. Does anyone really think switzerland did the right thing by pretending to be neutral in ww2?
As for the current problems in Iraq, here’s one of the president’s speeches, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html . One thing I think was not discussed enough was the cease fire signed in ‘91; http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm . Iraq’s failure to adequately follow it was a large part of the problem. Don’t forget all the money we spent keeping forces there and patrolling the no fly zones. And here’s another meaningless WW2 analogy to ponder. What would have happened if France had told Hitler that germany signed a treaty after WW1 and couldn’t put tanks in the Rhineland? ( I might not have that completely correct. I’m definitely not a historian.)
And while I’ve seen little evidence that saddam and alKada were working together, we know they had contact. Which of course doesn’t prove or disprove anything. But to say Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism is a bit of a stretch. See this article for example; http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/14/world/main543981.shtml .
Also, from what I understand, the Iraq Survey Group Report on WMD; http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/ did talk about what we could have expected had the embargoes ended and had saddam stayed in power. And if you wanted Iraq being another North Korea while we have troops in Afghanistan, that might’ve been a good option for you.
Whether or not the troops are doing any good in Iraq now, I can only guess. I personally would like to see things get done right, though I’m not very optimistic that that’s going to happen. Would pulling all the troops out now actually make a better future for all? Or would it just mean it becomes easier for us to once again ignore the mess that is the middle east?
Once again I suggest people check into different sources like Michael Yon’s blog; http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/a-thank-you-letter.htm . It’s easy in the heat of emotion to say that someone who disagrees with you is wrong. It’s a lot harder to step back and try and look at the complete picture (though I know I’ll never be able to from my cubicle at work ) and come up with good solutions to problems that have no perfect answer.
January 1st, 2008 at 9:02 am
[…] but I have seen precious little mention of it, either in the MSM or on the blogs. I posted about it on my own blog, and was met by the usual and expected troops of equivocators. Remember folks, until we attacked […]
January 1st, 2008 at 10:03 am
Barton: “You are assuming the US is doing all the killing. Why don’t you try adding up all the civilian casualties from bombings by Al Qaeda in Iraq and its pals. You might be surprised at the results.”
You are assuming the power vacuum created by the US had nothing to do with the rise of Al Qaeda in Iraq. That is incorrect. Wildly incorrect…bin Laden actually hated Saddam Hussein. We did him a HUGE favor by invading Iraq.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:33 am
Well, to be fair Barton, I never said it was violence as such, more so terrorism. Obviously, I’m too stupid to know that.
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:41 am
Icame writes:
[[Well, to be fair Barton, I never said it was violence as such, more so terrorism. Obviously, I’m too stupid to know that.]]
Sorry about that. I’m an ex-socialist myself, and one always hates one’s own previous errors the most strongly. But I shouldn’t have been rude. Apologies.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Accepted, and apologies for being curt in response. Everyone playin’ nice on the internet gives an angel it’s wings.
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:28 am
[…] but I have seen precious little mention of it, either in the MSM or on the blogs. I posted about it on my own blog, and was met by the usual and expected troops of equivocators. Remember folks, until we attacked […]
January 10th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
this sort of charged rhetoric is conduct unbecoming a skeptic.
When did skeptics have to start acting like flippin’ Vulcans, anyway? Perhaps you meant to say “robot” since that seems to be your ideal.