The Financial Cost of the Iraq War - A Total DISASTER

No one in 2003 had any idea just how bad Iraq's infrastructure had deteriorated since 1991.

 

they were wrong a lot about Iraq, that is what I said, it cost the tax payers

btw, I agree about nation building, that was a mistake

 

I'm sorry if the complexity of the task overwhelms. That's because it was an overwhelming task. The global economy collapsed under Bush. The Right wing ninnies forget that little chestnut when they try to blame this on Fannie and Freddie. Mortgage companies were writing "liar loans" at the the rate of $25 billion a month and when the crap started to smell, they bundled the stuff up into derivatives, etc. Then the really big guys, the insurance companies got involved and the smaller big guys, the investment houses got involved.

When the world exploded the Obama Administration was faced with a hard choice, bale out the speculators (banks and investment giants and auto companies) or do what Hoover did. Let the entire global economy fall into Depression. They bailed, and bailed, and bailed. That's why rampant speculation sans regulation is a BAD thing. It went on for eight years. I thought Obama did great because I predicted it would take ten years to get us back on track.

So, where did the money all go? Read the history. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner wrote a book about it.

 

Truly false statement.

Germany was attacking American ships during world war 1 and Japan attacked Pearl harbor in world war II

 

So how come we haven't invaded China yet?

 

So Mr Obatard bailed out bankers and the auto industry and that's what saved the world, Alrighty then Well one thing I'm grateful for, at least you didn't bring up Solyndra LMFAO

 

I'll be happy to discuss Solyndra, because that one is on my turf. Solyndra had developed a proprietary thin film solar process that turned out solar panels in a continuous rolled sheet that promised to significantly reduce the cost of solar installations. Several companies had tried the technology but couldn't make it work. Solyndra claimed a breakthrough, but the company overstated the projected efficiency of the tube panels. The company needed investment capital to get to the production phase. A couple investment capitalists and a government loan guarantee of $500,000,000 got the company into production.

The promised efficiencies never were reached but a far bigger problem put the company under. Silicon solar panel cost went down dramatically and China bombed the price of silicon flat panels. That beat Solyndra's abilities to match the alternate (proven) technology. That bankrupted the company. This happens in the technical world. It is accepted dogma in high tech industry is that 'if you're not failing occasional, you're not stretching.' Solyndra was behind the curve on market direction.

The Obama Administration was committed to pushing technical advances with good commercial potential. The were willing to risk money on the most promising bets. Solyndra was one of those so the government backed with $500,000,000. It was a bad bet. So, should the government stop granting loan guarantees to promising technologies and processes? Look at what they rolled on NASA.

 

Officially, perhaps not (Im skeptical). Though we at least had a large role in his coming to power.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sou...aw22cICTzoC-MzoQhOOvNpsP&ust=1560647089552665

 

we don't stop trying to invest in finding a cure for cancer cause so many have failed at it...

"We learn by doing, by taking risks, by failing, and, only then, by succeeding. We grow from our mistakes and from our failures.
If we cannot see that failure is the essential other half of success, then we try to avoid the failure and, in so doing,
we avoid success." ~ '2150 AD' by Thea Alexander

 

LMAO In a "as the left believe" universal meltdown, yes! Many in my corner believed that money, "All the stimulus" could have served the U.S. better if had simply been put to infrastructure! If anything it would have saved boat loads of money on NINTY NINE weeks of extended X2 unemployment benefits, boat loads of money to subsidies food, low income housing and

$36.9 billion for Aid to People Affected by Economic Downturn (Recovery Act)
Purpose:
For food stamps, rural housing assistance, child care aid for low-income families, and farm loans

Sample Programs:
Special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants and children ($500 million)
State re-employment services for the jobless ($250 million)


$48.4 billion for Education (Recovery Act)
Purpose: For job training grants, aid for schools, Pell Grants, and education administration costs

Sample Programs:
Dislocated worker job training ($1.25 billion)
Pell Grants for higher education ($15.8 billion)
Head Start programs ($1 billion) Education for the disadvantaged - elementary and secondary education ($10 billion)


$324 million for Accountability (Recovery Act)
Purpose:
Accountability funds were funneled into various government departments to oversee the disbursement of stimulus aid and for general division operations

Sample Programs:
Department of Agriculture - Office of Inspector General ($22.5 million)
Recovery Act Accountability and Transparency Board ($84 million)
Government Accountability Office salaries and expenses ($25 million)


$58.4 billion for Aid to State and Local Governments (Recovery Act)
Purpose:
To fund various legal, crime prevention, community outreach, economic development, and disaster assistance programs

Sample Programs:
State Fiscal Stabilization Fund to avoid cutbacks and layoffs ($53.6 billion)
State administrative expenses to carry out increase in food stamp program ($295 million)
Violence against women prevention and prosecution programs ($225 million)
Community Oriented Policing Services grants ($1 billion)


$41.4 billion for Energy (Recovery Act)
Purpose:
To support weatherization procedures, green energy ventures, and modernization of existing utilities systems

Sample Programs:
Modernize electricity grid ($4.4 billion)
Innovative technology loan guarantee program ($6 billion)
Federal building conversion to "high-performance green buildings" ($4.5 billion)


$870 million for Business (Recovery Act)
Purpose:
Primarily to support small business ventures

Sample Programs:
Highway infrastructure investment ($26.7 billion)
Additional capital investments in low-income housing tax credit projects ($2.25 billion)
Safe drinking water capitalization grants ($2 billion)
High speed rail capital assistance ($8 billion)


And it goes on and on, just a grand give away is all it was.. What's really striking is the amount of money "Claimed" to go towards infrastructure, high speed rail, highway and modernization of electrical grids and still the stupid ass had to shell out 99 weeks of unemployment, food stamps, housing subsidies and a dozens of other hand outs.. Nothing adds up, if so much emphasis is/was put on shovel ready jobs then why was so much money just handed out and unemployment for just under TWO years..

Just a bunch of blind leftist taught to accept leftist arithmaTRICKS is all and money pissed away for nonsense programs..

 

When one cuts and pastes it would be good to credit the source.

 

So you think we didn't learn anything from the great depression? The democrats did nothing that FDR tried with Keynesian economics. Where FDR differed from Mr Obatard is he believed,

Mr Obatard and the rest of the democrats loved the idea of flooding the country with funny money, but they also enjoyed pocketing it whereas IF they had learned from the past they would have used that funny money to fund work projects! NOW granted FDR and the economy was squelched by the onslaught of a World War! But none the less his primary goal and attack was on creating employment putting America back to work and independent whereas the democrats at time used the bump in the road to create dependencies and great entitlement culture that thinks they don't have to be productive and the Democrats know they will continue to vote for those social programs..

 

Must I remind you of your approach to credit and source!

A bit hypocritical wouldn't you agree Opion8d?​

 

I never said that? or anything like that? I am saying there will be many failures, like Solyndra, but we still need to keep investing in green energy, learn from previous mistakes

how many failures trying to get to the moon, we did not give up... that is why we finally succeeded

 

It's a question, do you understand the ? at the end of the sentence??????

 

If the government needs to invest in it you can guarantee two things, the government will never be able to quit 'investing' in it and it will always fund the worst of several possible alternatives but always the one whose patrons are best politically connected.

 

Yes, without major propaganda efforts by MSM as you provide here, we would still be at peace.

 

The US government cannot be trusted. From Venezuela to Iran, treat everything with a critical eye. Right wingers, failing to do that, may as well just admit they are stooge statists. Given the death toll in Iraq, they are also suffering in the morality stakes.

There is a political economic problem here though. We undoubtedly have to refer to liberal military industrial complex analysis. That also helps explain how the US destabilises the world through 'accidental war' (accidental in the sense that it is inconsistent with national defence public good criteria). However, that is a consequence of the high military burden. It doesn't necessarily give us an understanding of how that burden is created.

Keynesianism has already been mentioned (but only through crass error over FDR who rejected Keynes' analysis). There is indeed some mileage in using macroeconomic analysis. Empirical analysis, for example, confirms that military expenditure has been counter-cyclical. This isn't surprising, given Reaganomics was a sham and mere Military Keynesianism run amok. However, that's still not enough. Take out Reaganomics and the Keynesian analysis is less assured.

We therefore have to go more heterodox. It is certainly true that we can't understand US outcomes without reference to Marxism. Engels, for example, will help us understand the links between American imperialism and militarisation. Analysis into hegemonic power helps understand the inflation associated with arms production. And crisis theory helps appreciate how the US stabilises it's economy without empowering the pesky working classes.

It is these issues that open up an understanding of why US foreign policy will always be problematic. To shift away from its militarism will undoubtedly require a shift in its economic paradigm. There are simply too many people who would lose out from such a shift. Expect more costs!

 

problem is, even if true, many of our allies think breaking our word with Iran on the deal brought this about, so will they support us in a war they think should never of got to this point, will they trust Trump, the man who broke America's word, the one that lies all the time?

 

yes, those many trillions lost over seas to two 10+ year wars could of helped America.... for one, less debt

even TrumpTard was against the war in Iraq

 

so you think a private military, private police force and toll roads are the answer?

 

The Iraq war was based upon the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 overwhelming supported by Democrats in Congress and signed into law by President Clinton.

The Bush administration at first used the Iraq Liberation Act to get Congress to approve regime change in Iraq and it seemed the Democrats were suffering from sort term memory lost.

So British MI-6 fed G.W. Bush with fake intelligence that the most evil man in the world had WMD's.

The Iraq war was poorly executed.

G.W. Bush didn't go to war with the Reagan military like his daddy G.H.Bush did but went to war with the military he inherited from President Clinton.

Under the Weinberger and Powell Doctrines, it was required to put 400,000 to 500,000 troops on the ground but Bush (43) inherited Clinton's military being only able to put 200,000 troops on the ground.
Enough to accomplish the mission of regime change but not occupation of Iraq.

The U.S. military should never be used for nation building but neocons and liberals see it differently.

What many ignore was that the Iraq war had extremely low American casualty rates.
About the same number of American troops that were killed in Iraq was about the same number of American troops killed during the Philippine Insurrection.

 

And with his bribing high officials at the UN to get the sanctions lifted how much would a Saddam free to rebuild his chemical and biologic weapons stocks, as the ISG found he had had hidden away the necessary materials and could have done so within months, and ramp back up his nuclear weapons programs what more would it have cost?

“Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

 

So what was your plan to deal with Saddam? The Clinton administration said he could not be allowed to remain in power.

 

Many forget the war with Iraq only lasted less than a month with those minimal casualties and cost. What cost American lives and treasure was Al Queda and the Islamic groups moving the front of their war against us to Iraq. A strategic mistake on their part as we, in spite of Obama, defeated them there.