cost of the iraq war vs. cost of the vietnam war

Trippy discussions of moral issues, conspiracy theories, the paranormal and other otherworldly phenomenon.

Moderator: Dracofrost

cost of the iraq war vs. cost of the vietnam war

Postby TerraFrost » Wed Jan 30, 2008 7:52 pm

The Pentagon, according to the report, is currently spending 5.6 billion dollars per month on operations in Iraq, an amount that exceeds the average cost of 5.1 billion dollars per month (in real 2004 dollars) for U.S. operations in Vietnam between 1964 and 1972.

"While fewer troops are in Iraq, the weapons they use are more expensive and they are paid more than their counterparts who served in Vietnam," according to the report, which noted that at current rates, Washington could spend more than 700 billion dollars over 10 years -- 100 billion dollars more than the total cost of the Vietnam War.

source
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Re: cost of the iraq war vs. cost of the vietnam war

Postby Roadkill » Thu Jan 31, 2008 7:42 am

And this would be the only credible reason why we should pull out of Iraq. Given the current situation, might one agree with Mr. Paul and argue that "international righteousness be damned, we can't afford it!"? (not a quote of his)
Image
<center>The secret's in the wings...
User avatar
Roadkill
Heroic Guard
 
Posts: 2847
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 5:18 am
Location: somewhere

Re: cost of the iraq war vs. cost of the vietnam war

Postby Dracofrost » Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:11 am

Umm, the only credible reason? What about the fact that it was initiated under false pretenses in the first place, by a military ill equipped, trained, or prepared for the type of war it has become? The American military is relatively small, very high tech, suited for quick strikes and reeking utter destruction very precisely, not long occupation style, nation building and anti-guerilla/insurgency warfare. You need more manpower to do that right, along with a different way of thinking and training. Yes, we're better at that now thanks to bitter experience. But that's just a shitty way to do things.

Though did that analysis count for the rate of inflation?
User avatar
Dracofrost
Frost Drake
Frost Drake
 
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 4:55 am
Location: Crossed into the Blue

Re: cost of the iraq war vs. cost of the vietnam war

Postby Roadkill » Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:16 am

Just because we went in there wrong isn't a good reason to pull out, having gotten where we are.

But the inexperience does play into, the same way... its all economics. Training, equipment... soldiers from our force are expensive. It's costly when they die. At a time when the front cover of these magazines are all saying "Shit! Our economy is going down!"
Image
<center>The secret's in the wings...
User avatar
Roadkill
Heroic Guard
 
Posts: 2847
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 5:18 am
Location: somewhere

Re: cost of the iraq war vs. cost of the vietnam war

Postby TerraFrost » Fri Feb 01, 2008 8:20 pm

Dracofrost wrote:Though did that analysis count for the rate of inflation?

I assume that's what the "in real 2004 dollars" means.
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Re: cost of the iraq war vs. cost of the vietnam war

Postby TerraFrost » Fri Apr 18, 2008 7:47 pm

Nobel Prizewinning economist Joseph Stiglitz says the tab is well over $2 trillion when you add rehabilitation for injured vets, replacement of military hardware, and the value of things we could have produced (but didn't) with that money over the past seven years.

source (emphasis mine)

If true, that's incredibly disingenuous. That's like me spending $5.00 on a McDonalds meal, saying I, end the end, lost $10.00, because what I could have bought (and didn't) with that money would be $5.00. So, in the end, by eating 1x McDonalds meal, you actually lose the ability to eat two! Wheee!

That said, just because some blogger said a noble prizewinner said it doesn't mean that really happened. And even if the nobel prizewinner did say that, I still think the Iraq War has been really expensive (per the initial post of this topic).

Also, back to something Roadkill said...

Just because we went in there wrong isn't a good reason to pull out, having gotten where we are.

I, sadly, think I kinda agree. As the movie Charlie Wilson's War documented, Afghanistan - the country most implicated in 9/11 - was abandoned after the Soviets left. If we had just spent a little more money, we would have been saved the heartache that'd later come.

Of course, in the case of Iraq, no one's claiming that it's just going to be a little bit more money before it's all over. It's only going to be over after we've spent a ton of money. So we can either go broke trying to make the place (maybe) a country as respectable as Japan and Germany, or we can risk having a country that (maybe) would be as bitter towards us as North and South Korea are to each other. It's not a pretty picture, either way.
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am


Return to Twilight Zone

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests

cron