On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 22:26:24 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> enriched this group when
s/he wrote:

On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 18:52:44 GMT, in alt.atheism , Ye Old One
<usenet@mcsuk.net> in <gtqhu1d7r7vv3lig1ik65deckftq5dl37k@4ax.com>
wrote:

The direct cost is not really measurable. Sure, there is extra costs
in pay for the troops, but that isn't very much. A lot of munitions
were used, but if they hadn't been used in war then a lot would have
been used in excercises and/or gone past their use-by date.

And yes, a lot of money is being spent on rebuilding Iraq, but most of
that is being spent within the USA so there is no lose to the economy.
Another point is that the USA will get a lot of its money back in the
form of consumer sales to the growing market that is forming in Iraq.

In reality, the USA may well make a long term profit from the job.

You are just making this up, aren't you?

No, far from it.

Of course *direct* costs are
measurable. The amount of material used is quite a bit more than the
amount that would get old and it is easily calculable. The cost of
maintaining a soldier at the end of a 12,000 mile supply chain is
quite a bit higher than at home.

Is it? You would (I think) be surprised how little real difference
there is.

There is a reason they have asked for
several hundred billion dollars. That is not play money, they needed
it to pay for what they are using *right now*.

Which means the normal defence budget will have a very large surplace
for a few years.

Quite a large part of
the rebuilding money is not spent either here or in Iraq, it is taken
in graft.

Deal with it - your country, like mine, has laws against things like
that.

On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 22:26:24 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> enriched this group when
s/he wrote:

On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 18:52:44 GMT, in alt.atheism , Ye Old One
<usenet@mcsuk.net> in <gtqhu1d7r7vv3lig1ik65deckftq5dl37k@4ax.com>
wrote:

The direct cost is not really measurable. Sure, there is extra costs
in pay for the troops, but that isn't very much. A lot of munitions
were used, but if they hadn't been used in war then a lot would have
been used in excercises and/or gone past their use-by date.

And yes, a lot of money is being spent on rebuilding Iraq, but most of
that is being spent within the USA so there is no lose to the economy.
Another point is that the USA will get a lot of its money back in the
form of consumer sales to the growing market that is forming in Iraq.

In reality, the USA may well make a long term profit from the job.

You are just making this up, aren't you?

No, far from it.

Of course *direct* costs are
measurable. The amount of material used is quite a bit more than the
amount that would get old and it is easily calculable. The cost of
maintaining a soldier at the end of a 12,000 mile supply chain is
quite a bit higher than at home.

Is it? You would (I think) be surprised how little real difference
there is.

There is a reason they have asked for
several hundred billion dollars. That is not play money, they needed
it to pay for what they are using *right now*.

Which means the normal defence budget will have a very large surplace
for a few years.

Quite a large part of
the rebuilding money is not spent either here or in Iraq, it is taken
in graft.

Deal with it - your country, like mine, has laws against things like
that.

And I don't know about you, but I see a big difference
between $100,000,000,000 for the government to spend and
$100,000,000,000 for Halliburton to spend. It does matter who's pocket
the money ends up in, but cost to the country is cost to the country.

No it isn't.

This is worse than Saddam accomplished in his 30 years in charge.

Wrong. Saddam killed over 600,000 of his own citizens.

Do you have a source for that number? Is it the same people who told
you that Saddam had WMD?

Given elsewhere, and no, it was Iraq that told us about the WoMD

On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 22:26:24 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> enriched this group when
s/he wrote:

On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 18:52:44 GMT, in alt.atheism , Ye Old One
<usenet@mcsuk.net> in <gtqhu1d7r7vv3lig1ik65deckftq5dl37k@4ax.com>
wrote:

The direct cost is not really measurable. Sure, there is extra costs
in pay for the troops, but that isn't very much. A lot of munitions
were used, but if they hadn't been used in war then a lot would have
been used in excercises and/or gone past their use-by date.

And yes, a lot of money is being spent on rebuilding Iraq, but most of
that is being spent within the USA so there is no lose to the economy.
Another point is that the USA will get a lot of its money back in the
form of consumer sales to the growing market that is forming in Iraq.

In reality, the USA may well make a long term profit from the job.

You are just making this up, aren't you?

No, far from it.

Of course *direct* costs are
measurable. The amount of material used is quite a bit more than the
amount that would get old and it is easily calculable. The cost of
maintaining a soldier at the end of a 12,000 mile supply chain is
quite a bit higher than at home.

Is it? You would (I think) be surprised how little real difference
there is.

There is a reason they have asked for
several hundred billion dollars. That is not play money, they needed
it to pay for what they are using *right now*.

Which means the normal defence budget will have a very large surplace
for a few years.

Quite a large part of
the rebuilding money is not spent either here or in Iraq, it is taken
in graft.

Deal with it - your country, like mine, has laws against things like
that.

And I don't know about you, but I see a big difference
between $100,000,000,000 for the government to spend and
$100,000,000,000 for Halliburton to spend. It does matter who's pocket
the money ends up in, but cost to the country is cost to the country.

No it isn't.

over $5,000 per working man and women in the U. S.. In addition it
has cost over 2200 American lives plus 15,000 seriously wounded and
many permanently handicapped.

Iraqis are also people and human, and it is estimated that between
30,000 and 50,000 have been killed and an unknown number seriously
and permanently wounded and handicapped. In addition much of the
infrastructure of the country has been destroyed

This is worse than Saddam accomplished in his 30 years in charge.

Wrong. Saddam killed over 600,000 of his own citizens.

Do you have a source for that number? Is it the same people who told
you that Saddam had WMD?

Given elsewhere, and no, it was Iraq that told us about the WoMD

Also started a gratuitous war with Iran, which resulted in an estimated
900,000 fatalities.

Yes. But then Iraq was not totally to blame for that.

On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 22:26:24 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> enriched this group when
s/he wrote:

There is a reason they have asked for several hundred billion
dollars. That is not play money, they needed it to pay for what
they are using *right now*.

Which means the normal defence budget will have a very large surplace
for a few years.

On 7 Feb 2006 14:23:45 -0800,

Ye Old One wrote:

On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 17:04:59 +0000 (UTC),

On Tue, 07 Feb 2006, Ye Old One <usenet@mcsuk.net> wrote:

On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 09:43:19 -0500, "Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

"Khubla" <khubla@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:H6OdnfHQqfi59nXeRVn-rQ@adelphia.com...

IRAQ'S CIVIL WAR HAS COST $3,000 PER U.S. FAMILY-- SO FAR - LINK -
God forbid critics of the war on Iraq should compare it with the
war in Vietnam. But perhaps it is worth mentioning that the
liberation of Iraq is now costing more each month than the
preservation of the Republic of South Vietnam did more than 30
years ago.

A careful study by two Economics professors indicated the actual
cost of the Iraq war to date is approximately one trillion dollars
which works out to

You have to be kidding.

It will be a miracle if the direct costs come in at less than half a
trillions, so I don't find the estimate of an overall cost of twice
that very surprising.

The direct cost is not really measurable. Sure, there is extra costs
in pay for the troops, but that isn't very much. A lot of munitions
were used, but if they hadn't been used in war then a lot would have
been used in excercises and/or gone past their use-by date.

There is the cost of lost production by the temporary diversion of
manpower.

You mean you have no unemployed in the US?

Also, the permanent loss by death and crippling injury.
Difficult to quantify.

True, but it is tiny when seen on a national level.

And yes, a lot of money is being spent on rebuilding Iraq, but most of
that is being spent within the USA so there is no lose to the economy.

Depends on what you mean by loss. I consider giving tax dollars to
Haliburton a net loss. I will not get back its equvalent from them; all
*I get from the war is a politically divided country, a bad reputation
overseas, and greater politcal insecurity.

If money is spent within an economy the net wealth doesn't change -
provided people are employed and of course taxes paid.

Another point is that the USA will get a lot of its money back in the
form of consumer sales to the growing market that is forming in Iraq.

How much would we have gained (or lost) if we had chosen alternative
actions? Anyone who thinks they know what the price would be (and I
don't mean just in dollars) for various alternative decisions in this
chaotic situation is naive at best.

Again, true. However, for the people of Iraq, and most of the middle
east, the end of Saddam has been a blessing.

And how much do we lose by being the bad bully of the decade? That is,
the cost of reduced good will, reduced trade, etc.

To be honest, I don't think it will make a blind bit of difference.
Certainly it seems to have had no effect in the UK.

Have you factored in the loss to interest for the national debt?

Suppose there is one more terrorist attack on the scale of the Twin
Towers because of this; how much would that cost? I am well aware, too,
that we could not know for sure if it would not have happened without
the Iraq invasion - the Bushites would undoubtedly say it would have
been worse. If we truly do not have a reasonable idea of the
consequences of our actions, perhaps we should err on the side of peace
and cooperation.

Speaking personally, I'm sure that the invasion has saved thousands of
innocent lives. In the long run it will improve peace and security in
both the middle east and the world in general. I also believe that in
the long run the USA will be a better place for having taken a stand.