MyFox
 

historian's Blog

by historian from Denver

Last Post 504 days, 6 hours Ago


IN "REAL TIME" THE COST OF WAR
Jun 10, 2007 | 9:34 AM
Category: News
Report This Post

COST OF THE WAR IN IRAQ
$433,336,670,170
To see more details, click here.
21 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 21
Page 1 of 2
1
2
 Last
LinkODay read my blog view my photos
Jun 10, 2007 | 11:51 AM

Thanks for using a link Historian.
Interesting site. I always wonder how they calculate those things (debt clock, popluation clock)
I'll have to look into it when I have a second.
-Mike
FOX 31
Moderator
Scribe2 read my blog view my photos
Jun 10, 2007 | 11:57 AM

Now THAT's an informative little bit, historian. However, imagine a world where we shun pro-active action (war without direct military attack) because it "costs too much." World War 2 was decried as a war we did not belong in, thank goodness we joined: Hitler had concrete designs on attacking the United States. The Islam Nations have already launched their attack via terrorists. I think we belong there.
drerunner read my blog
Jun 10, 2007 | 12:06 PM

Historian , if true ,that is a huge number. I dont aurgue your numbers ,but if you were to calculate the cost of certain meaningless projects the democratic congress have implemented over the same tme period ,you would probably have an even horse race.
historian read my blog view my photos
Jun 10, 2007 | 1:13 PM

They are not my numbers and what does the cost of this conflict have to do with Hitler or belonging in Iraq? And who mentioned anything about shunning pro-active action?
Scribe2 read my blog view my photos
Jun 10, 2007 | 9:52 PM

It was implied, wasn't it? That's certainly the twist of that website. As a historian, ahem, you should "get" the allusion. You're entitled to your opinion anyway, so what's the beef?
Scribe2 read my blog view my photos
Jun 10, 2007 | 10:03 PM

Lots. Blah blah blah. Delete again.
Abunai read my blog view my photos
Jun 10, 2007 | 11:07 PM

http://www.cdi.org/issues/milspend.html

For an idea on perspective: Total cost of the Cold War after decades of talking instead of acting. You can add about 3 more digits to that number!!

Another attempt by a liberal at sensationalism by using giant numbers without perspective. The Iraq War expenditure sits right at about 1% of the nation's GDP. WWII alone before the Cold War cost 25% of the America's GDP.
(don't fall for big numbers when they are not presented in any form of context....)
Abunai read my blog view my photos
Jun 11, 2007 | 12:58 AM

Incase the link does not work:

Entire Cold War (1948-1996) $13,100,000,000,000.00

Peacetime Cold War (less Korea and Vietnam)
$285,400,000,000.00

We can all flash giant number around, but here is more perspective:

Annual Defense Budget 400 Billion (Pre Clinton)
Budget by 1996 reaches new low of 260 Billion.

Budget shortfall of 140 Billion from 1997 to 2003 (6 years) 840 Billion shortfall. (yet we increased military use instead of lowering it.

Just by the shortfall alone (less the 260 Billion authorized) the government is STILL in the RED!!
Scribe2 read my blog view my photos
Jun 11, 2007 | 6:14 PM

Holy mackerel, Abunai! Good researchin'!
historian read my blog view my photos
Jun 11, 2007 | 8:29 PM

Typical ABUNNI---Spin right off the subject. Con diversionary tactics! Cold War is over, Pal. Stick to subject. Quit boring me with off-topic comments.
historian read my blog view my photos
Jun 11, 2007 | 10:27 PM

Oh, bad research, Abunni. Your off-topic numbers are way off. You made them up, didn't you.....
Abunai read my blog view my photos
Jun 12, 2007 | 8:39 AM

LOL! Sorry there historian but they are actually straight from the source. (link in my blog)

I don't believe they are off topic either, The point is that the defense of this nation has a price. It has ALWAYS had one.

What I have done here is expose you historian for trying to shock people with flashy numbers and ommitted the perspective to them.

My pledge as always: To bring the WHOLE truth, perspective and context of issues that liberals omit on purpose. That is what I have done here.

Question for you historian... how do you make the statement that my research/"off-topic numbers" are off and then suggest I made them up? IOWs you have not done your research, and no, I don't make things up, thats a liberal thing. I invite you to check them out.
Abunai read my blog view my photos
Jun 12, 2007 | 8:43 AM

Here.. I will make this easy:

http://www.cdi.org/issues/milspend.html

If this isn't good enough, then just google the phrase "total cost of cold war" and do the math yourself....

Google "cost of WWII to GDP" if ya like. Put your thinking cap on...

(I love this debate on military spending! I destroyed a political science class in BOUDER with these numbers! Professor actually looked it up, and the next class presented them as an example of "thinking" instead of just "reading.")
AlwaysaSceptic read my blog
Jun 13, 2007 | 1:13 PM

Abunai
Very good! Way to put things in perfect perspective!

The sad thing is that Historian will not look at what you presented because he/she is emotionally tied in to the war FEELING bad to him/her. FACTS mean nothing when you feel so bad that you only want the thing that make you feel bad gone. Kind of like how Churchill would fabricate information to make his opinions a false reality. The same is true for this guy/gal.

Your point is well made for every sane thinking American! So sorry Historian and a few other Americans will disregard your information
Abunai read my blog view my photos
Jun 13, 2007 | 5:22 PM

Thats ok... This is exactly why liberals hate conservatives so much. Its not even about a difference in opinion (though they would like it to be) but more about being exposed for trying to twist facts into an alternative reality. They wont engage in factual debate.

On my blog I have another fine example of Murtha doing the same thing with information about electrical power in Iraq! The man literally took facts, twisted them, and played word games with the issue in order to be on the edge of truth, but once you put depth into it, he is exposed for absolute propaganda just as brazen as anything a Jihad website would post!!
Page 1 of 2
1
2
 Last


Write your comment below:




historian

I use to go by the name “bush is evil.” My opinion, he is. But the name seemed to be a bloody bit too much for the last few remaining Bush supporters to handle. They all cried foul! Disrespect! They labeled me as a Democrat even though I never once promoted any democrat in my posts nor have I ever bankrolled or endorsed the democrats as my party. This bush coterie tried everything they could to constrain my intellective pursuits. They failed. I believe that Bush has to expiate his wrongdoings. I voted for both Bush’s. How was I to know? I was as naive as the hanger-on Bush supporters of today. I began to probe all bush allegations. At first, I refused to believe. I was in denial, again, much like the Bushies of today. To my disbelief, I realized that it was all true. I was crushed. I told myself I’d never vote again. Bruised, I picked myself up and brushed me-self off. Now, my goal is too help the last of the Bushies to become aware through thought reform. It's a tough job as many are just good old country boys and gals that won't give in to the truths that their President has been less than honest with those who put their trust in him. And, they have to be open enough to want to change when just possibly it could be for the better. Many Bushies think that it's not American like to want better for our nation and our planet in these turbulent times. And that brings me to why I am changing my screen-name. Maybe out of respect to the ones the name angers, is why I am doing it. For them. I don’t hate anyone. I love my country. But whatever the reason was, BUSHISEVIL distracted the Bush loyalist from my re-education process. Rather than intelligently discuss my post, some angrily got caught up in a name. A name that of no-one they have ever met; No clue or knew anything about. All this flap because of an immature obsession over a screen name and all after a screen name that they perceived an evident personality from. They could have physic abilities. Do you think so? Well, maybe now that I call myself, "Historian" their anger might subside enough to allow them to intelligently debate the issue at hand rather than rage with anger from ignorance. My statement only applies to those who were guilty of and most of the Bush supporters who frequent this site are good, hard working Americans smart enough to not let a name push their buttons.

Member Since: 3/25/2007


 

View All Photos


RSS: XMLWhat is RSS?