Yes, that’s right. The War on Iraq is now costing the United States $100,000 of your tax dollars per minute:
Most of the new money would pay for the war in Iraq, which has cost an estimated $250 billion since the U.S. invasion in March 2003.
The additional spending, along with other war funding the Bush administration will seek separately in its regular budget next week, would push the price tag for combat and nation-building since Sept. 11, 2001, to nearly a half-trillion dollars, approaching the inflation-adjusted cost of the 13-year Vietnam War.
…
No large-scale reconstruction projects are included in the spending, officials said.
Currently, the Defense Department says it is spending about $4.5 billion a month on the conflict in Iraq, or about $100,000 per minute.
Heckuva job.
By way of contrast, you may remember what Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told Congress about the cost of the war on March 27, 2003: “We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.”
And before that, while the Administration was ensuring we’d go to war with Iraq no matter what, Rummy said on January 19, 2003: “The Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that’s something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question.”
Here’s a few other similar statements from members of the most failed Administration in the history of the United States.
Man, just give me an hour’s worth of that money, and I PROMISE you won’t be sorry.
Man, just give me an hour’s worth of that money, and I PROMISE you won’t be sorry.
What do you think the price will soar to once we start bombing Iran…and maybe Syria?
I’ve been trying to reply to post #10,and it fails to post it.I wonder if something’s going on with my e-mails,too.Will try to post this one………….has any one else had this problem?
Jeannie: Everything on this site seems to be messing up and timing out and generally frustrating the users today. NSA is probably doing a big download…. 🙂
Yes, I had a hard time getting back here just now, kept timing out.
{ed note: Comment deleted due to flagrant violation of the few rules we have here.}
The racist pigs are here, eh #7. You can bet your crap will be deleted, and I hope you are banned from this BLOG as scum.
The Iraq war generates debt, destruction, and death. It has ruined the reputation of America, and has been a terrorist generating machine.
Everything al Queda wanted the neoCons have given them.
Elections where terrorists win in Palestine, and ignorant depraved neoCons claim to have won in the US.
Our last chance is in November 2006, when we must send a message to the neoCons and to the world.
Here is a different analysis from yesterday.
Well, here is the issue, there have been 1,516,320 minutes since we invaded Iraq, well, since yesterday. But anyway, going by $100,000 a minute we get:
1,516,320 * $100,000 = $151,632,000,000
But we know the cost is really up to $480,000,000,000.
So, we would need to:
$480,000,000,000 / 1,516,320 = $316,555.87
So, the actual cost of the war is $$316,555.87 per minute.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
Isn’t the number somewhat underestimated. The way we are tracking the Iraq War costs are through "supplementals" which reflect the costs beyond normal costs of supporting our troops. As I understand it only those costs associated with the placement of our troops in the war theater are included. Excluded would be the base costs of salary, housing, standard medical care, etc
Any way you count it, it’s money that is needed here.
The Federal Reserve was created to transfer wealth to the bankers, Iraq, to transfer wealth to bushco.
There is a study that says a possible $2 trillion is the cost. Hell, who knows. They don’t tell us shit.
Key findings in examining "The Transition", since we "turned the corner" and Iraqi’s "started voting":
A Failed ‘Transition’ is the most comprehensive accounting of the mounting costs of the Iraq war on the United States, Iraq, and the world. Among its major findings are stark figures about the escalation of costs in these most recent three months of "transition" to Iraqi rule, a period that the Bush administration claimed would be characterized by falling human and economic costs.
1. U.S. Military Casualties Have Been Highest During the "Transition": U.S. military casualties (wounded and killed) stand at a monthly average of 747 since the so-called "transition" to Iraqi rule on June 28, 2004. This contrasts with a monthly average of 482 U.S. military casualties during the invasion (March 20-May 1, 2003) and a monthly average of 415 during the occupation (May 2, 2003-June 28, 2004).
2. Non-Iraqi Contractor Deaths Have Also Been Highest During the "Transition": There has also been a huge increase in the average monthly deaths of U.S. and other non-Iraqi contractors since the "transition." On average, 17.5 contractors have died each month since the June 28 "transition," versus 7.6 contractor deaths per month during the previous 14 months of occupation.
3. Estimated Strength of Iraqi Resistance Skyrockets: Because the U.S. military occupation remains in place, the "transition" has failed to win Iraqi support or diminish Iraqi resistance to the occupation. According to Pentagon estimates, the number of Iraqi resistance fighters has quadrupled between November of 2003 and early September 2004, from 5,000 to 20,000. The Deputy Commander of Coalition forces in Iraq, British Major General Andrew Graham, indicated to Time magazine in early September that he thinks the 20,000 estimate is too low; he estimates Iraqi resistance strength at 40,000-50,000. This rise is even starker when juxtaposed to Brookings Institution estimates that an additional 24,000 Iraqi resistance fighters have been detained or killed between May 2003 and August 2004.
4. U.S.- led Coalition Shrinks Further After "Transition": The number of countries identified as members of the Coalition backing the U.S.-led war started with 30 on March 18, 2003, then grew in the early months of the war. Since then, eight countries have withdrawn their troops and Costa Rica has demanded to be taken off the coalition list. At the war’s start, coalition countries represented 19.1 percent of the world’s population; today, the remaining countries with forces in Iraq represent only 13.6 percent of the world’s population.
California_Reality_Check –
I was doing similar math last night myself. I may post on that later today with some additional thoughts. Might have done so last night, but we were under attack all night long and couldn’t access the sight at all (as you folks may have noticed!)
Brad, thanks for the confirmation. Hope ‘they’ are done and we can get back to business as normal.
What Happend here last Night ? I googled "brad" it moved fom 9 down from the top to 6or7 down.
I going to Listen to LOL @ http://www.11l-rni.com/ Johnny Lightning Show 11L-RNI Radio New Your International
How much is Kosovo costing us? Accoring to the U.N., the consensus seems that that war was a resounding failure.
It still amazes me that the libs demanded regime change, by POTUS, in Iraq with the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 but now piss and moan because a Republican president actually did what they demanded of lord BJ.
Further, cheers for quoting Wolfowitz correctly, jeers for not bothering to actually look at what he said.
BTW, how many soldiers did the liberals predict would die in the intial campaign in Iraq? Hasn’t happened, has it (much to your chagrin)?
How much is Kosovo costing us? Accoring to the U.N., the consensus seems that that war was a resounding failure.
It still amazes me that the libs demanded regime change, by POTUS, in Iraq with the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 but now piss and moan because a Republican president actually did what they demanded of lord BJ.
Further, cheers for quoting Wolfowitz correctly, jeers for not bothering to actually look at what he said.
BTW, how many soldiers did the liberals predict would die in the intial campaign in Iraq? Hasn’t happened, has it (much to your chagrin)?
Wolfowitz sure had a handle on the numbers. What better gig for him than World Bank capo – he’s a natural.
For Iraq, cons bring up Kosovo. For breaking the law, cons bring up Clinton/Carter/George Washington. That’s no way to debate. It’s not debating, when you say, "Well this guy did it 500 years ago." Clinton doesn’t get a pass, if anything was wrong with Kosovo. But guess what? That’s not what we’re talking about! Nice try.
I’m sure, without even checking, that Rush Limbaugh and the rest of rightwing media, which I banned listening to, is the one bringing up comparisons of the cost of Kosovo to Iraq. I know this, when their Kook-Aid chirping followers start bringing this up on this blog. They would never think of it themselves.
How about this comparison: Zero of of troops died in Kosovo. But then again, the rightwing Kook-Aid drinkers are only concerned of the $$$ aspect, not the lives of our troops. The comments above are proof. This person’s silence on THAT comparison speaks volumes about how they feel about American troops’ lives.
Brad, can you expand on your "under attack" comment? Were people trying to take down your site?
Predicting deaths in this war isn’t a liberal issue, you jackass. This corrupt, crooked, administration has yet to justify ONE death!
Thanks for helping me do my final speech that’s due today (procrastination!). I’m doing a speech on the cost of war versus the cost of immunizing every child in the entire world. Thanks for the info!