Sunday, March 09, 2008

It Costs Too Much

Here's a detailed article on the unreasonable costs of the Iraq war by a couple of Abandonistas. Note this is merely further whining in the same tune that Obama and the liberals in congress continue because now the political and social stabilities are being achieved.
There is no such thing as a free lunch, and there is no such thing as a free war. The Iraq adventure has seriously weakened the U.S. economy, whose woes now go far beyond loose mortgage lending. You can't spend $3 trillion -- yes, $3 trillion -- on a failed war abroad and not feel the pain at home.
Fascinating to see that these morons still have missed the news coming out of Iraq for the past 6+ months. It also makes me wonder what their solution is? Should we just abandon Iraq and throw that money away completely? Or should we consider leaving the state of Iraq stable and aid a world economy that we still lead?

Of course the writers go on to try and make the economic problems we've seen lately as being caused by the Iraq war.
The end result of all this wishful thinking? As we approach the fifth anniversary of the invasion, Iraq is not only the second longest war in U.S. history (after Vietnam), it is also the second most costly -- surpassed only by World War II.

Why doesn't the public understand the staggering scale of our expenditures? In part because the administration talks only about the upfront costs, which are mostly handled by emergency appropriations. (Iraq funding is apparently still an emergency five years after the war began.) These costs, by our calculations, are now running at $12 billion a month -- $16 billion if you include Afghanistan. By the time you add in the costs hidden in the defense budget, the money we'll have to spend to help future veterans, and money to refurbish a military whose equipment and materiel have been greatly depleted, the total tab to the federal government will almost surely exceed $1.5 trillion.

So, we should withdraw from the world entirely? Run away and hide under a rock because that would save us money but would end up with the US in economic ruin because isolationism has always been a major stiumlous for economies?

And the argument continues that the money could be used to pay for healthcare or social services.
The long-term burden of paying for the conflicts will curtail the country's ability to tackle other urgent problems, no matter who wins the presidency in November. Our vast and growing indebtedness inevitably makes it harder to afford new health-care plans, make large-scale repairs to crumbling roads and bridges, or build better-equipped schools. Already, the escalating cost of the wars has crowded out spending on virtually all other discretionary federal programs, including the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and federal aid to states and cities, all of which have been scaled back significantly since the invasion of Iraq.
Yep, let's get in place those social services and ignore the world stability and security issues. God knows if you ignore the bad guys they'll ignore you. That's how the world works right?

Fascinating how the world always would be so much better for this brand if we all just ignore the rest of the world. Ignore that our economy is nearly global in reach and thus requires stability. Forget that the islamofascist have set their sites on the US as the cause of all ills in their world. Taking an active part in the world at least gives you a say in the outcome. Hiding under you rock pretending that everything beyond the horizon can't hurt you is nice, if really stupid way to live.

No comments: