Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News The Price of Victory

  1. Jul 26, 2005 #1


    User Avatar

    Recent estimates show the US has already spent a massive $314 billion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with a further $450 billion expected to be spent over the next 10 years. This will surpass the total cost of $600 billion (adjusted for inflation) for the Vietnam war and the $430 billion cost for the Korean war.

    In return there appears to be very few gains. Global terrorism is at an all time high and people feel less safe now than before the wars started, whilst new divides have opened up between former allies.

    Just how much more can America afford to spend before it begins to seriously damage her economy and is 'the war against terror' winnable in any case? What happens if a new front opens in the likes of Syria or Iran or even Taiwan?

    Will America's power begin to wane from the burden of debt she is accumulating as happened to the european powers after WW2? Or indeed to the USSR more recently?

    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 26, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 26, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Did you have to remind me? Oh...you're thinking you can bring the neocons to their senses. Good luck. This was their slogan in 2004:

    Four more wars! Four more wars!
  4. Jul 26, 2005 #3
    Oh, THAT's what they were yelling!

    I thought that was a room 'service' request for:

    Four more whores! Four more whores!

    My bad.
  5. Jul 26, 2005 #4
    We're three whores short. Quick Bill! Get married again!
  6. Jul 27, 2005 #5
    It's amazing. I don't understand how anyone can support this. I don't understand.
  7. Jul 27, 2005 #6


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    If we hang in there it will be worth it because Iraq will be a democratic ally in the Middle East--that's what the dude at the water cooler said. Now what's going on in the NFL?
  8. Jul 27, 2005 #7


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think that *that* is the real goal of OBL and Co. That's probably why he waited for 9/11 until Bush was elected, just to make sure that the US would "engage"...
  9. Jul 27, 2005 #8
    You banged it on the noggin there vanesch. That is in fact what he states in his address to the USA in 2004:

    http://wikisource.org/wiki/Text_of_2004_Osama_bin_Laden_videotape [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  10. Jul 27, 2005 #9


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Oh m'gosh, that's who Dubya works for -- OBL!!!
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  11. Jul 28, 2005 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Desperate Cardinals fans are hoping the new quartet of Warner, Fitzgerald, Boldon, and Arrington will lead their team to the playoffs for the first time in ages. In the NFC West, you never know.
  12. Jul 28, 2005 #11


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Very funny (you know I was joking, right?). My real answer to pattylou's question is:

    Americans can tell you statistics of every sport, what happened on an episode of a T.V. program last night, what the celebrities are doing, etc. I'm not saying entertainment should be banned, only that it should be kept in proper perspective. Because at the same time, Americans can't find the time to watch the news, or make it a priority to take interest in what's going on in their country or the world (how boring!). Most people hear little comments from others at work, or a family member, or what have you, and that becomes their political position.

    I've said this several times. Education needs to be important, and it needs to be more global in nature, and it needs to start young--having children bring in current events articles for example. And parents need to be more proud of academic achievement than sports achievements.

    This is the problem.
  13. Jul 28, 2005 #12


    User Avatar

    Have you noticed the neocons are strangely silent. For the first time they seem to have absolutely nothing they can pick on to argue with? Maybe the truth is finally sinking home with them too? :wink:
  14. Jul 28, 2005 #13
    Oh God. I hope so.

    Even if it's for the wrong reasons - the almighty dollar - I hope you're right.
  15. Jul 28, 2005 #14


    User Avatar

    lol Yes I think it's just hit them "WHA..... WE HAVE TO PAY FOR ALL THIS?????????? :cry: "
  16. Jul 28, 2005 #15
    It's okay ... really ...

    It's their own companies they are paying.

    Construction. Oil exploration. Armed services support. Arms.

    I think they are silent because the attacks on other countries for supporting Saddam just revealed their own subsidiaries on the lists too.

    They are just staying silent and raking in the cash.
  17. Jul 29, 2005 #16


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    A lot of the neocons probably aren't even aware of these things. According to recent polls, there is a significant percent of Americans who still believe there is a connection between 9-11 and Saddam.

    Then the one's that do know the facts are rationalizing that democracy will take time, but it will be worth it because it will spread throughout the world. They are being smug (not silent) thinking how all the anti-war people will be proven wrong. In the very unlikely chance that will happen, I say they have to apologize for being wrong about links to Al Qeada and WMD first. :wink:
  18. Jul 29, 2005 #17


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Well, there IS a link, no ? Saddam got kicked out because the American administration didn't know how to handle 9-11, no ? :tongue:

    (like there is a link between de menezes and the bombings of the London subway: he got killed because the police didn't know how to handle the bombings' aftermath)
  19. Jul 31, 2005 #18
    May i ask you : so what ?

    There is a link, there is no link... :zzz: ...it really does not matter. We are all glad that Saddam is gone. The American actions in Iraq are certainly justified and i am glad there is still a courageous nation left that has the guts to stand up against global terror. It ain't gonna come from the pussies here in western europe that cannot even manage their own European constitution :rofl:

    Besides, for the future of terrorism, Europe will be the target because thanks to our overall left wing politics, there is quasi no defense against terror, no screening, no control. Why do you think it has been since 911 that there has been an attack on US soil, while they are really the biggest enemy of these inferior terrorists ? The reason is simple, because of strick security measurements. I think the US, as always, is handeling this situation far better then us, Europeans.

    But in the end, this terror stuff is losing its influence on the world because we will live with it. Just look at the 'impact' of the latest bombings on the economy.

    I say, we must evolve to a more US type of politics (also on social security issues) here in western Europe and please, loose these eastern Europe countries that we have accepted in the latest EU-expansion. I mean, what is up with that ?

  20. Jul 31, 2005 #19
    Ends will never justify the means.... The deaths and total chaos that is now in Iraq is actually worse than when Saddam was there, and the situation in the ME is by far worse and more unstable now than before... Dont forget that US was very happy with Saddam for the longest time...

    never realised that Iraq was terrorsing Europe?

    show us the justification... WMD? there is arent any... There are worse dictators in the world than Saddam, why is bush administration not going after them? The War was not endorsed by the UN and in some people eyes it could be deemed as Illegal

    Each country in Europe has different social security system, and politics... just because we have the EU doesnt negate that all countries have the same political systems (or influence)??

    If Europe is to have the same political and economical footing as the like of China in the not so distance future, it needs a large population base, amongst other things... thats "whats up with that"

    If we should loose the "eastern European" countries we should also loose Belgium, Belgium was always the poor cousin of France Netherlands and UK, after its creation... If King Leopald didnt rape the congo (whats up with that, and why is the state holding all factual information on this?) I couldnt see how Beglium would have survived as a separate entity.. The underground economy of Belgium, and corruption that is at the heart of politics here is as bad, as our Eastern European neighbors ... :rolleyes: There are reason why they call Belgium the "Sicily of the North"
  21. Jul 31, 2005 #20
    Wrong, saddam was a mass murderer. More (of his own people) died under his command during his gass attacks in the late 80ties then there are people dead during the entire Iraqi 'war'

    How about the war with Iran ? How about Quwait ?

    Please, look at the facts and do not remain blinded from reality because it is popular to make certain statements. look at the facts.

    No ? Are you really living in Brussels ? Can't you see certain evolutions coming ? Can't you learn from history ?

    :rofl: Typical, i assure you, if Bush had done that, you would have asked the exact same question. :rolleyes:

    I never said that. I was only comparing the belgian system with that of the US. Our social security system is no longer realistic because of several reasons...i am sure i do not have to explain to you why.

    What ? Based upon what facts are you saying this ? I really do not follow here

    What is your point ? What you are saying is incorrect and nowadays, the Flemish part of Belgium is one of the richest regions in Europe ? Please, what are you saying here ?

    Wrong again; nearly every nation in Europe has done the same: France, Italy, ...the UK...(not being a member of the EU, smart guys :approve: )

    Since every nation has had colonies, your point is invalid because the netto effect on EU-economies,relative to each other ofcourse, would have been the same if colonization had not taken place.

    Well, this is not the place to start speculating, stick to facts, please.

    I have lived in Belgium for 25 years (and i am 25 now) and i have never heard that name. But then again, if this is true, it does not bother me. Following your line of reasoning we could call the entire world, the Sicily-globe or something. :rolleyes: Please...

  22. Jul 31, 2005 #21
    You mean all those acts done with US assistance and/or blessing?

    Did you forget that the USA were allies of Saddam and supplied him with the technology and the intel during the Iran war?

    How about Kuwait??? They were proven to be side drilling into the Iraqi wells and when the Brits left, they failed to define a border that was exact.

    Iraq repeatedly told them to stop.
  23. Jul 31, 2005 #22
    Oh no, here we go again. Yes i know the US have been the ally of Saddam during the war with Iran. This is just standard geo-politics and you cannot condemn the US for that. It is morally not correct but then again every nation does it. if you start condemning the US, you should do the same with France, Germany,...etc etc...but do you see that happening ?

    Nevertheless, Saddam remains a mass murderer, irrespective of whom ever supported him. That is my point.

    Every nation is unethical when it comes to geo politics? Should we open the book on the role of China and Tibet or on the role of China's internal political policies and 'respect' for human rights ? We all know what is happening, yet everybody keeps whinning about one nation only: the USA. I am saying, this is all very hyppocrite to me.

  24. Jul 31, 2005 #23
    Well Marlon, I am sure you could open some big books of irrelevencies and tend to blow more smoke over the issues however, what we are discussing here is a small plot of land known as Iraq and the state that supported them with the WMD that were later tracked and destroyed by Bush I, the USA.

    You simply can not bring up those issues as a defence of the USA invading a country when they were the country that gave them the materials.

    But then, they not only gave them the materials, they gave them the satelite intel on where to release Chemicals for the greatest efficiency.
  25. Jul 31, 2005 #24
    War isn't irrelevant.

    Well, that is your opinion. I can just as easily say that you are not able to come up with arguments, proving that the US-saving of Iraq is illegal. Plants to build WMD were found in Iraq, just no WMD. But than again, why are you forgetting about what kind of 'man' Saddam was ? That is a pretty convincing argument to me.

  26. Jul 31, 2005 #25
    Say Belgium next time, I am sure if you re-read your post you will find you said:

    Firstly Italy never had a empire after the Romans (~2000 years ago if you didnt know)

    By the time Leopold started raping the Congo, The Netherland UK and Frances idea of colonising was to give back to the colones, not kill more than 10,000,000 of them to make profit from Rubber... Sorry but King Leopold (and I am not saying Belgium but your King, although after he gave the congo to Belgium you werent much better) idea of colonisation was very differnt to the rest of Europe around the turn of the 20th century, and yes this happen last century not the middle ages.

    Al-queda and Iraq are NOT synonomus... pft... The increase of terrorism is a consquence of Iraq, but the two are not synonmus

    Its called ecconomics and trade... To import export more goods, at a higher enough level so that you cant be dominated by another region you need a large popluation base, the larger the population base the more weight is behind your politics when it comes to this... Its very simple really :tongue2:

    Perhaps you should do the same and not run your mouth off when your facts are skewed...
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook