posted on September 16, 2009 08:34:55 PM new
"ECONOMIC SCENE: Afghanistan will cost US more than Iraq
Funding for war in Afghanistan will eclipse Iraq for the first time in next year's budget."
What is the cost of the Iraq and Afganistan Wars?
"Costs and utilization of healthcare and other veterans’ benefits are running about 30 percent higher than she and coauthor Joseph Stiglitz, a Columbia University Nobel Prize economist, estimated in their 2008 New York Times bestseller, “The Three Trillion Dollar War.” Adding in some social costs (such as families caring for the disabled and a diminished labor force), the two economists put a “moderate-realistic” price tag on the two wars of $5 trillion."
That sure would pay for a lot of health care. The Bush wars are now the Obama Wars, and like the LBJ period we find ourselves funding a larger war while attempting to build the missing link of the Great Society.
posted on September 17, 2009 08:34:45 AM new
Reminds me of Neville Chamberlain's theories in 1938.
It's only the most strategic spot on the planet and if not stopped, you'll have the Taleban and Al Qeda in control of Pakistan and its nukes.
And of course, the cost in SE Asia would have been astronomically higher had Burma, Thailand, and possibly India been taken over, which was the point of the whole thing.
posted on September 17, 2009 10:47:58 AM new
Didn't the Russians fight a 10 year war with the Telaban and never won. It will happen again unless full force is used. With the many hills in Afganistan they can hide and nobody will find them. That was Russians problem and that is why the fighting ended. The Telaban will never lose. They will be fighting for years whether it be the US or another country.
posted on September 17, 2009 04:21:54 PM new
Why would any sane person want to negotiate with a terrorist?
Liberals are exempted from answering. It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
posted on September 17, 2009 04:38:47 PM new
..because a sane person would realize that option #1 is even more unrealistic than #2, as undesirable as both options are.
option #1 also just helps push more people into their organization, so your just killing killing killing until you either quit (fail) or run out of bullets - it can never be accomplished.
your screwed either way, but one way involves a whole lot less deaths by American soldiers. who wants to be the last one to die in a winless war?
posted on September 18, 2009 07:37:34 AM new
The US has the tactical capability of destroying every terrorist in Afghanistan with a minimum of US troop loses. Not fighting to WIN and create ultimate terror in the hearts and minds of those terrorists is criminal. Like obozo is doing now, taking an extended period of time to CONSIDER reinforcing the ground troops. It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
posted on September 18, 2009 08:20:33 AM new
Liberals love the term "warmonger" and always scream the "B" option. However they are also traditionally dramatically poor in math and history. In collective memory, the "B" option has never worked. The "A" option has succeeded many times. The "cost" is all relative. A whacked out religious dictatorship with the bomb is a little much, even for a wacky liberal. Even a puppet like Obama has that figured out.
These guys have been kept "busy" now for several years by constant financial and military pressure. The casualties are the cost of doing business. The enemy's tactic is to outlast you. And if you think you are going to deal rationally with a group who has endured such huge casualties in pursuing this tactic, you're delirious.
