Total Cost of Wars Since 2001, how high can you count?

[orphanedhawk]

http://costofwar.com/en/

Total Cost of Wars Since 2001
$1,264,303,188,247,567++++
The number keeps going up.
This is where our tax dollars are going.
Stopping the war budget is, in my opinion, the first step needed to turn things around.

[adgal]

Well, the middle east sure does hate the US (and it's allies, they just hate you more) as the west represents the complete opposite of the oppression most of those folks live under.  And with advancements in social networking, and average people in the middle east seeing what freedom looks like, I think you will see the Middle East attempt to further it's campaign for the destruction of the US (I am of course talking about the radicals).  Average people there are rising up and beginning to fight for what they want.  It would be great if it could be left to be sorted out internally, but sadly, some of these lunatics blame the US and seem to think that their destruction means the continuation of their power (this is my theory anyway).  So the US is now put in a position where they are darned if they do and darned if they don't.   It's not an easy situation.  What I would like to see is the allied forces come together more.  Countries like Canada, France, etc. who don't have anywhere near the military strength of the US, but combined are strong, start backing the US more.  It absolutely must happen.  We all do it on a limited basis, but time to start taking some of the pressure off the US and backing them up.  The word allie needs to start working both ways.  But instead the US continues to be put in a position where it has to keep spending outrageous sums of money to just protect itself.  Not saying we could do it without the US, but we sure could be more supportive.  And Iran?  We all need to work together there.  That is one scary dude.

[brice1967]

Now you're in for it!  Just kidding.... Depending on whom you talk too, Iraq may or may not have been a legitimate thing.  We do know that Hussein gasses thousands of his own people.... (I am not going to stand up for or against the Iraq invasion, with the exception of saying we were there once and didn't finish the job.  If you're going to go over, might as well win the danged thing, and end the problem.  We didn't so we ended up there again...)

Libya?  Still there... it certainly could be seen similar as the Iraq thing, again, depending on whom you talk too.

Iran....This is going to be a problem.  Achmedinejihad or what ever you said, clearly has a developed hatred for the US and pretty much any ally.  We will be involved there sooner or later.  We went back in the day to straighten out the Ayatollah... or was it the Shah.... whatever.  Again, the job was half finished.  I say that in regards to whenever we go through one of these "over throws", we end up propping up someone we think we can work with.  10 - 20 years down the road, it seems we end up back in the middle east.

I don't even know if I have an opinion any more.... concerning whether it is either good or bad.  The US is in a precarious position, and will remain there.

[adgal]

Wow..  That's insane.  I am not all that surprised though, for, as Brice said, the US tends to be the country that takes care of the rest.

However, to challenge that thought just a bit Brice (because I love debating with you..lol).  I do believe there was a time when the US involvement in many of these squirmishes was for altruistic purposes (Vietnam comes to mind).  But today?  I am not so sure that is the primary motive.  If we really look at the countries where the US has gotten involved, I do think for the most part, it was due to US security concerns.  And btw, nothing at all wrong with that....tell the truth, that is really how it should be.  But Afghanistan was definately a direct result of threats to the US. The added bonus was the country became somewhat free, but Al Qada/Taliban threats were the primary reason.  Iraq?  The reason given was weapons of mass destruction that the gov't believed would be used against the US.  Again, as a bonus the world was rid of a madman, but the threat against the US was the main reason, no?  Libya?  I also think that had more to do with the lunatic in charge over there having chemical weapons and was a threat.  And now Rawanda?  Well, the genocide happening there has been going on a very long time, so why now?

Anyway, that is not in any way shape or form a negative.  The US can and should always protect it's people and it's borders.  I just question the belief that the main reason going into these countries is for the benefit of others.  I do think that becomes a side benefit in many cases, but I don't think it's necessarily the primary reason.

And Iran?  Achma what's his pickle has made it pretty clear he hates the US, and I don't think there is much question he is a threat to both the US and Israel.  But he's been a threat to Israel for a long time.  And agreed...a confrontation is coming.

Just my thoughts.  And again, I do not consider it a negative that the US is considering it's own best interests in these situations.  That is actually the sign of a gov't that puts it's own first, and does not negate all the good the US does around the world.

[brice1967]

Quite the number, isn't it.  I'll agree that that number is astronomical but the fact that we are the worlds guard dog ensures that those costs will continue.  I heard yesterday that we are close to the draw down in Iraq.  Obviously there is much debate over it... (By the way, has anyone seen what we are willing to leave behind over there?  Billions of dollars of equipment because the cost to bring it home is too great....., yup, that's what I said.... too great.)

So with that in mind, is it safe to assume that we will be leaving millions or perhaps billions of dollars worth of gear in Afghanistan, and how much to be left in Libya?  Now, we have a confrontation with Iran looming.......

That big old number looks like a slot machines take in Vegas....