Before the war, there has been a lot of debate here about how much it would cost. The real figures are now available :


Peace at any price?

US and Britain count the costs of Iraq

Friday July 18, 2003
The Guardian

It is now clear that the financial price of putting Iraq back together again is high and rising at an alarming rate. Keeping 150,000 US troops in Iraq is costing $4bn a month - double the $2bn forecast as recently as April.
(…)

With many friends and allies badly bruised by Washington's insistence on bending international law to launch the war, few are currently prepared to help out with offers of troops. Instead the cost burden will be continue to be borne by America and Britain. The war and its messy, increasingly bloody aftermath have cost the United States $48bn so far. At the current rate of spending, if the occupation were to last the four years General Tommy Franks says is needed, the bill will be $200bn for the US troops alone.

But America and by implication Britain have signed up not just for the destruction of Iraq, but for its salvation. Given the ambition to reshape Iraq as a democracy, Iraq needs a Marshall plan.

(…)
The latest estimates are that at least $90bn will be required. Nation-building on this scale needs cash quickly. This will not come from Iraq's dilapidated oil industry, which is not pumping but dribbling crude.

Without a new UN resolution, the rest of the world will refuse to help. The US already faces a growing budget deficit.

(…)

The run-up to an election would be a bad time to discover that war can be cheap, but peace is expensive.



Whole text : http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1000438,00.html

I wonder what the cost of us to live in fear would be? What was the cost of the Iraqi people being tortured? What will the world SAVE in the long run?

Look at it as an investment. You've got to spend money to make money. The Iraqis will soon be back on their feet & again contributing to the world's economy.

Finally your position is not very different from Leper's. If the balance is positive, it is OK.
That makes sense. But then you have to ask a few questions :
1- How long will it take until this "investment" becomes profitable ?
2- Why does the american taxpayer have to pay for the recovery of Iraqi's economy ?
3- Wouldn't it be a better an d more profitable investment to put that money in other parts of the world that need it even more than Iraq ?

Hehe, welcome to the Dark Side, es347fan! Of course, now you just need to come to terms with the fact that the war is a bad investment (Of course, just for the record, I think of money in much more abstract terms than most people).

1. I haven't a clue, but would guess 5 years.
2. It's the American way. We've funded the recovery of many nations.
3. Were it my call alone, I'd not fund anyone, anymore. The US is hounded by all sides of the argument for whatever actions are chosen.

Originally posted by es347fan
3. Were it my call alone, I'd not fund anyone, anymore. The US is hounded by all sides of the argument for whatever actions are chosen.

So do you still support this war ?

Yes, I continue to lend my support to the war. No sense in leaving now, the job isn't completed.

As to #2, I don't think you can look at the expense in absolute terms, but rather in comparison to what it would cost if we had left Iraq alone. Of course you can debate that endlessly, but at least recognize that having to deal with a possibly terrorist and possibly nuclear nation has its own costs. Which isn't to say war should start being justified by economic data.

Originally posted by es347fan
Yes, I continue to lend my support to the war. No sense in leaving now, the job isn't completed.

Just for the record again, I actually agree with this. Now that we're out there, we need to finish the job for credibility's sake. The only thing I want to hear now is that going out there in the first place was a mistake...simply an admission of error.

Of course someone has to finish the job. I doubt the USA and UK alone will be able to. We will sooner or later see the UN come back.

F**k the U.N. they showed there true colors now that the sh** is over they want to step in and look like the good guys "I say to he** with that", once again the U.N.(united nimrods) can stick it where the sun don't shine.

The Usa are currently begging their allies - India, Turkey, France, Germany - to come and help them in Iraq. They all replied it was possible only under a clear UN assignment.
If more american soldiers are killed there, Bush will face a dilemma : keep on sustaing alone the burden of occupation and see his policy criticized more and more, or make a U-turn and ask help from the UN. Both could cost him his reelection but at least the second option would be better for american troops there and for the stability of Iraq.

The UN has become as useless as tits on a longhorn steer. The UN needs to be placed in stasis & emerge as a new entity.

Damn, astrapol, you still hate America just as much as always, huh? I bet you are ashamed to say that your country gave us the Satue of Liberty, huh?

What makes you think I hate America ? I never wrote one single hateful word against your country.

Are you ashamed of the fact that the Statue of Liberty was a gift to us from your country?

Perhaps it's the "tone" of your postings, perhaps you've inadvertently become a spokesperson for all of France, and thereby the recipient of displaced anger toward your nation. There is a lot of dissatisfaction with all things French, possibly exacerbated at this time, brought about by the stance of your political leaders toward the crisis in Iraq, yet, at the same time, this is not really a new emotional response. There has long been a general feeling of distrust when it comes to the French.

I guess you're right, ES347. Sure most of my posts are critical of the present american position, so people may interpret that as criticism of the american in general.
I sure do not wish to become a sqpokeperson for all of France, since I am equally critical of the present French govt and especially of Chirac. If anybody here needs facts about the many scandals concerning our president, just ask me ! ;)

Everything you say is AGAINST what America is doing. What the heck am I supposed to think?

Why would you like a country that you oppose 100% of the time?

There are many things in America I do not oppose . But I do not see the point of posting about what is right.
Remember I mostly criticize your present govt's attitude, not the american people.
And criticism is very different from hate anyway !

"...There are many things in America I do not oppose . But I do not see the point of posting about what is right. ... "

I think we'd all like to read some of what you like about America. Have you traveled to the United States? If so, where did you travel, what did you see? Haven't been here yet? What would you like to see, what would you like to experience?

I was last in France in '87. Took a bus trip from Wiesbaden, Germany to Paris, spent the day wandering about the huge flea market area. Had a fun time.

OK ES347. I posted my answer on a new thread since this is getting out of topic here…
http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2325

Why wont you answer a simple direct question Atro?

??????
I did !

Are you ashamed of the fact that the Statue of Liberty was a gift to us from your country?

No, why should I be ashamed ?

Not once did I see astrapol take a stance that made it look like he hated the US, he was critical, with right reasons, he gave more credit than is deserved right now. He simply saw two options concerning Iraq, and that possibly both of them could cause Bush to loose his reelection. Then Dave harped on him about hating America when he had no backing of it, just because somebody critisizes doesn't mean hate, dave, you acted like a little child who can't stand to know he did something wrong. Havok, what use is wondering if he is ashamed that France gave the US the Statue of Liberty, what kind of bullshit is that? Frankly, I'm confused as to you people's motivation.