Cost of war

[Captain_Snort]

I read he other day that the UK / US / Australia / anyone else involved? spent approaching $40 billion on the invasion of Iraq.

Now, this, seeing as the fabled Weapons of Mass Destruction have not been found yet, due to either they are hidden too well, or just possibly they didn't exist (haven't been made yet), we have been told by the supporters of the war it is for humanitarian grounds that the war occured. We all agree that Iraq was no direct threat to the coalition countries. When you realise that say 50% of this money could go a long way to help halting the 26,000 children a day who die from simple preventable things like measles and diarahea (you spell it) by providing things like clean water supplies etc.

Does not the case for neccessary humatiarian action kind of become laughable?

[Baker]

Originally posted by Captain_Snort
I read he other day that the UK / US / Australia / anyone else involved? spent approaching $40 billion on the invasion of Iraq.

Now, this, seeing as the fabled Weapons of Mass Destruction have not been found yet, due to either they are hidden too well, or just possibly they didn't exist (haven't been made yet), we have been told by the supporters of the war it is for humanitarian grounds that the war occured. We all agree that Iraq was no direct threat to the coalition countries. When you realise that say 50% of this money could go a long way to help halting the 26,000 children a day who die from simple preventable things like measles and diarahea (you spell it) by providing things like clean water supplies etc.

Does not the case for neccessary humatiarian action kind of become laughable?

This is one of a thousand different examples that could mach this argument like the many billions of dollars given to foreign nations or the millions given to many useless government programs.
The list is endless besides if these problems that you have described or as bad as you make them out to be then they should have been looked at long before the war.

[Captain_Snort]

Originally posted by Baker


This is one of a thousand different examples that could mach this argument like the many billions of dollars given to foreign nations or the millions given to many useless government programs.
The list is endless besides if these problems that you have described or as bad as you make them out to be then they should have been looked at long before the war.

as you say 'SHOULD' but hell they don't have oil

How much did LIVE AID raise back in 1985, well under £50 million, but how much good did that bring?

[Baker]

Originally posted by Captain_Snort


as you say 'SHOULD' but hell they don't have oil

How much did LIVE AID raise back in 1985, well under £50 million, but how much good did that bring?

Could you please elaborate a little more on your comment?
I was pointing out that there is a lot of wasteful spending from the government and that your questions should have been asked long before the war.

[Captain_Snort]

Originally posted by Baker


Could you please elaborate a little more on your comment?
I was pointing out that there is a lot of wasteful spending from the government and that your questions should have been asked long before the war.

Can I point out, its not 'the' government, but your government, I live on my side of the atlantic and do not give a s**t about your governements internal spending. And what has what I posted to do with US internal policy?

[Baker]

Originally posted by Captain_Snort


Can I point out, its not 'the' government, but your government, I live on my side of the atlantic and do not give a s**t about your governements internal spending. And what has what I posted to do with US internal policy?

You claimed that the US could have used the money that was spent on the war could have gone to help on problems in the US true but I was pointing out that there are also many other expenses that could also be dropped to meet the same results.

[Captain_Snort]

At no point have I said the money the US spent, note I mentioned all the countries taking part (all 3)

its amazing how US citizens, like their 'lawfully' elected rulers fail to take into account there is more than just the 200 million odd of them on this planet

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Captain_Snort
At no point have I said the money the US spent, note I mentioned all the countries taking part (all 3)

its amazing how US citizens, like their 'lawfully' elected rulers fail to take into account there is more than just the 200 million odd of them on this planet

It's amazing how some people fail to recognize that the U.S. is the most generous nation on earth.. Our cowardly massacre-ing tendencies notwithstanding.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Captain_Snort
I read he other day that the UK / US / Australia / anyone else involved? spent approaching $40 billion on the invasion of Iraq.

I'm suprised that it only cost that much. Bush originally asked for around $75 billion (for just the US alone.)

Of course, any expenditures must be weighed against the benefits:
- The US and UK do not have to patrol the No Fly zones anymore (saving millions, if not billions per year)
- Iraq oil sales will increase supply and lower prices, thus stimulating the economy
- A more democratic Iraq will contribute more to the world economy, thus benefitting everyone.

Originally posted by Captain_Snort
Now, this, seeing as the fabled Weapons of Mass Destruction have not been found yet, due to either they are hidden too well, or just possibly they didn't exist (haven't been made yet), we have been told by the supporters of the war it is for humanitarian grounds that the war occured. We all agree that Iraq was no direct threat to the coalition countries.

There were many reasons for going to war in Iraq... Elimination of weapons was one of them. (Even if weapons are not found, there were very clear signals that Iraq had them.) Humanitarian reasons were another. Then, there is the link between Iraq and terrorism. (No, I'm not claiming Iraq was behind 9/11; but they do support other terrorist groups, and are quite willing to allow them to train there.) By eliminating Saddam, not only does the U.S. eliminate a terrorist-supporting country, they show other countries (like Iran and Saudi Arabia) they are willing to act.

And Iraq did not need to be a 'direct' threat to the coalition countries to make them a problem... war by proxy (through terrorism) must also be dealt with.

Originally posted by Captain_Snort
When you realise that say 50% of this money could go a long way to help halting the 26,000 children a day who die from simple preventable things like measles and diarahea (you spell it) by providing things like clean water supplies etc.

Does not the case for neccessary humatiarian action kind of become laughable?

In most cases, these preventable deaths are not caused by lack of funding, but by the poor leadership of the affected countries. The U.S. can send tons of food and medical supplies to 3rd world countries, but if they sit rotting in warehouses, who is to blame? If a leader of a 3rd world nation decides to spend money on stupid things, should the US get blamed for that too?

Want some examples?

- Tons of food aid to Africa was not given to the population. Why? Because its genetically modified (just like the stuff we eat.) So, the leaders there would rather their people starve to death

- White farmers in Africa (who produce much of the food) are getting thrown off their land... the result is a decrease in food production and more starvation

- South Africa (despite having serious problems, like AIDS) went and bought several submarines, supposedly to defend themselves against the US. (Uh, when did the US indicate they wanted to invade SA?)

- Thousands died in Iraq before the war. They were allowed to buy medical supplies, but instead Saddam built more palaces and bought more weapons.

In each of those examples, money was not the problem. Leadership in the affected countries was. And all the money in the world would not have fixed things.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Captain_Snort
I read he other day that the UK / US / Australia / anyone else involved? spent approaching $40 billion on the invasion of Iraq.

Now, this, seeing as the fabled Weapons of Mass Destruction have not been found yet, due to either they are hidden too well, or just possibly they didn't exist (haven't been made yet), we have been told by the supporters of the war it is for humanitarian grounds that the war occured. We all agree that Iraq was no direct threat to the coalition countries. When you realise that say 50% of this money could go a long way to help halting the 26,000 children a day who die from simple preventable things like measles and diarahea (you spell it) by providing things like clean water supplies etc.

Does not the case for neccessary humatiarian action kind of become laughable?

Don't you realize that the time we all waste on this forum could be used to volunteer to help the third world?...:rolleyes:

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Captain_Snort
At no point have I said the money the US spent, note I mentioned all the countries taking part (all 3)

its amazing how US citizens, like their 'lawfully' elected rulers fail to take into account there is more than just the 200 million odd of them on this planet

OK there...are you done your temper tantrum?

It is amazing to me, that US citizens must walk on eggshells and be polite or be accussed of being arrogant, yet the worst sterotypes are thrown against us constantly.