Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Cost of War

Options
  • 14-04-2006 7:19pm
    #1
    Pazaz 21
    Closed Accounts Posts: 294 ✭✭


    New figures out show that it would have cost roughly the same amount to have continued to contain saddam and his regeme as it was to go to war.

    Does anyone really care that the cost would have been the same even if the US had not invaded ? Are people really against the war because it cost so much, or is this complaint a bit down the list after the deaths of thousands of people ?

    I'm sure people wouldn't have cared if it had cost MORE to pursue a diplomatic solution, because in the end it ain't all about the money !!

    (Sorry, forgot i was talking about the US there for a minute):rolleyes:


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    ChityWest
    Closed Accounts Posts: 794 ✭✭✭ChityWest


    Pazaz 21 wrote:
    New figures out show that it would have cost roughly the same amount to have continued to contain saddam and his regeme as it was to go to war.

    Does anyone really care that the cost would have been the same even if the US had not invaded ? Are people really against the war because it cost so much, or is this complaint a bit down the list after the deaths of thousands of people ?

    I'm sure people wouldn't have cared if it had cost MORE to pursue a diplomatic solution, because in the end it ain't all about the money !!

    (Sorry, forgot i was talking about the US there for a minute):rolleyes:


    Not too sure that the overall cost (taken in isolation) is a factor high up on many people list of reasons to either oppose or support the war.

    There could be some who would decide in favour or against based purely on cost but I reckon its more a contributing factor than a deciding one.

    Out of curiosity what is the source for those figures ?

    It seems to me that if there is an argument saying that the cost of invasion and occupation is equal to that of continued diplomatic efforts then there would have to be some assumptions made as to the increasing costs that a diplomatic course would have entailed.

    i.e. in 2003/4/5/6/ the diplomatic course would have cost x countries x amount, which would have increased in proportion to the escalating costs of pursuing a military option of invade and occupy.

    I think that if those figures are saying that the costs of both options would have been equal are going to be pretty hard to prove considering that they are hypothetical.


  • Options
    #3
    Pazaz 21
    Closed Accounts Posts: 294 ✭✭Pazaz 21


    ChityWest wrote:
    Out of curiosity what is the source for those figures ?

    The April 8th to 14th issue of The Economist, P. 48. Blood and treasure, paying for Iraq.


  • Options
    #4
    ChityWest
    Closed Accounts Posts: 794 ✭✭✭ChityWest


    Pazaz 21 wrote:
    The April 8th to 14th issue of The Economist, P. 48. Blood and treasure, paying for Iraq.

    Cool thanks for that - its on their website - but in the premium section

    http://www.economist.com/

    may see if that issue is still in easons.


  • Options
    #5
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,423 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    well, the real cost of war in iraq, is the 3000 dead american soldiers, the 20,000+ severely wounded american soldiers, the 100,000 dead iraqi people (according to the lancet) the 1,000+ people per month who are being tortured to death in Baghdad, the 2,500+ people per month who are dying violent deaths in Baghdad, the countless disfigured, dismembered, blinded, deafened, orphaned, widowed and displaced...

    These are the real cost of war.

    the monitary cost should be utterly irrelevant.

    An irish road death is said to cost the Irish Economy about a million euros in lost education, lost labour, and various other costs. If each Iraqi and american live is worth the same, then the true cost of the War in Iraq is in the trillions of dollers.

    Already there are estimates that pass the magical trillion doller mark, those that include the future cost of dealing with all the iraqi wounded. those that include the 'externalities' that are conveniently ignored by those that would measure costs in terms of $ cost.


  • Options
    #6
    Pazaz 21
    Closed Accounts Posts: 294 ✭✭Pazaz 21


    Akrasia wrote:
    well, the real cost of war in iraq, is the 3000 dead american soldiers, the 20,000+ severely wounded american soldiers, the 100,000 dead iraqi people (according to the lancet) the 1,000+ people per month who are being tortured to death in Baghdad, the 2,500+ people per month who are dying violent deaths in Baghdad, the countless disfigured, dismembered, blinded, deafened, orphaned, widowed and displaced...

    These are the real cost of war.

    the monitary cost should be utterly irrelevant.

    An irish road death is said to cost the Irish Economy about a million euros in lost education, lost labour, and various other costs. If each Iraqi and american live is worth the same, then the true cost of the War in Iraq is in the trillions of dollers.

    Already there are estimates that pass the magical trillion doller mark, those that include the future cost of dealing with all the iraqi wounded. those that include the 'externalities' that are conveniently ignored by those that would measure costs in terms of $ cost.

    Totally agree with you.

    I think the upper estimate was around 1.2 trillion. I think they valued each American soldier at about 6 or 7 million.

    Thank you for stating my point a lot better then i did.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,423 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    thanks

    And in reply to those who would say that the cost of war in Iraq is less than the cost of not going to war, ie: the cost of the hundreds of thousands who have been murdered by Saddam over the years of his reign and the cost of the first Gulf War, the obvious response is:
    That's not the cost of not going to war, that's the true cost of the 'real politik' which 'justified' the intervention by the U.S. and others who basically paved the way for Saddam to rise to power in the first place. The cost of the current Iraq war is not a cost in opposition to the cost of leaving Saddam in power, it is a cost in addition to the cost of placing him in power in the first place.

    This 'real politik' is not just of academic historical record, it's a continuing policy.
    In afghanistan, the taliban were the force installed by the Americans in order to defeat the Northern Alliance who defeated Russia. Now the Northern Alliance are the people installed to defeat the Taliban. Even the blind can see that this is simply going around in circles, trading despot for despot in return for a temporary illusion of security. In Iraq, Saddam was installed to promote American interests against Iran in the Iran/Iraq war. now the Shias who are supposed to replace Saddam are doing the exact same things that Saddam had being doing. These are the 'good guys' now, the same way Saddam was the 'good guy' when Iran were the bad guys. It's all about promoting temporary stability for American interests. That is all they care about. Real politik is short term only, it only serves temporary interests. and nobody can possibly claim that in the short term, the Iraqi people will benefit from this invasion.


Advertisement