01 August 2007

War could cost $1 Gajillion

According to supposed wartime-ish, financial-ish "analysts," the war in Iraq could cost $1 Trillion. Members of Congress welcomed the report, all of whom were probably Democrat (all the ones in the article; see screenshot below); all of whom forgot to look at the facts. According to the article:

"In a report to lawmakers yesterday, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that even under the rosiest scenario -- an immediate and substantial reduction of troops -- American taxpayers will feel the financial consequences of the war for at least a decade.

It's been almost 5 years already, and i have yet to feel the financial effects of our current situation. Why would i feel it in another 10 years, and best of all, why would i feel it 10 years after the fact.

"If the United States gradually reduced its troop level in Iraq to 30,000 by 2010, the US Treasury would still have to provide up to $500 billion more to sustain those troops, as well as pay other expenses, he said in the report.

"In the alternative scenario -- in which 75,000 US troops remain stationed in Iraq over the next five years -- the nation would have to pay an additional $900 billion, according to the analysis.

It's because of this, that i frequently praise America. British forces in Iraq: 9,000. US forces in Iraq: 190,000. Personally i'd like to see another country try to match this. No single other entity on Earth can afford to do this.

"We should find a way to pay for it so that when this war is over we are not bankrupt," [Representative James P. McGovern] said.

Some people have such little faith in America. The worlds' foremost economic powerhouse is going to go backrupt from putting less than a few hundred thousand troops in Iraq? These figures just don't add up. McGovern needs to go back to school.

No comments: