Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
WASHINGTON -- The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost as much as $2.4 trillion through the next decade, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday. The White House brushed off the analysis as "speculation."
The estimate was the most comprehensive and far-reaching one to date. It factored in costs previously not counted and assumed that large number of forces would remain in the regions.
Wars May Cost $2.4 Trillion Over Decade - Newsmax.com (http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/Wars_cost/2007/10/22/43671.html - broken link)
I seriously don't see it carrying on for another ten years--or should I say, I seriously hope it doesn't--but if it does, I can't help but think about all the other useful things $2.4 trillion could be used for...
We will see even the monetary costs of this war for MANY decades. Thousands of soldiers need perpetual care, we will have a large embassy which needs maintenence. We have to rebuild alot of the Guards' equipemnt. I don't know though, just "speculating".
I seriously don't see it carrying on for another ten years--or should I say, I seriously hope it doesn't--but if it does, I can't help but think about all the other useful things $2.4 trillion could be used for...
The total includes the cost of setting up a perminant military base in Iraq, and all operating costs for the next 10 years. Might not be a bad idea but hopefully it comes at the price of closing another base somewhere else. Since they have not decided if another base will be moved, or a new base created, they added in the cost of a new one..
What is "conservative" about spending like this?
We need so many things in this country and sure could use some of that money for better things at home.
It's a lot cheaper than suffering the economic impact of more 9/11 attacks...
IIRC the stock market lost $1 trillion in the weeks following 9/11; add in other damages and pretty soon it will start to add up to some real money.
I'm skeptical: who knows what comprises the 'estimate'; as John1960 notes, "It factored in costs previously not counted"; plus the 'estimate' was prepared by the Congressional Budget Office (a group not known for prescience).
It's a lot cheaper than suffering the economic impact of more 9/11 attacks...
IIRC the stock market lost $1 trillion in the weeks following 9/11; add in other damages and pretty soon it will start to add up to some real money.
I'm skeptical: who knows what comprises the 'estimate'; as John1960 notes, "It factored in costs previously not counted"; plus the 'estimate' was prepared by the Congressional Budget Office (a group not known for prescience).
It's a lot cheaper than suffering the economic impact of more 9/11 attacks...
IIRC the stock market lost $1 trillion in the weeks following 9/11; add in other damages and pretty soon it will start to add up to some real money.
I'm skeptical: who knows what comprises the 'estimate'; as John1960 notes, "It factored in costs previously not counted"; plus the 'estimate' was prepared by the Congressional Budget Office (a group not known for prescience).
So the GAO isn't precise but then who estimated that the stock market lost a trillion dollars?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
