What does $456 billion buy?

[Bobblehead]

Including the $124.2 billion bill, the total cost of the Iraq war may reach $456 billion in September, according to the National Priorities Project, an organization that tracks public spending.

Here is a list of thing that could be purchased with that money. Some of them don't mean anything to me (I have no idea about Newton North High School), but other things are mind boggling:

At the upper range of those estimates, the $456 billion cost of the war could have fed and educated the world's poor for five and a half years.

[peter12]

It would have bought 3 Quebec provincial debts.

[looooob]

could buy Ed Belfour out of trouble 456 times

[Prototype]

So that's what thousands and thousands of lives are worth...

[RedHot25]

Doesn't seem to be able to buy peace

[rubecube]

I'll take access to large oil reserves for 600, Alex.

[Addick]

Re: #9

Wow! Just goes to show you where the governments’ priorities lay... Taking an uneducated guess for the sake of my argument, about $5 Billion is spent annually by governments to tackle problems in Africa. If this money was combined and focused into concentrated efforts it would probably be enough to solve the problem of Africa in my lifetime (I'm 21). However, individual governments spend money on poorly thought up and planned short term band-aid solutions that garner as much publicity as possible and fall short of their small goals. We have the power to change, but lack the political will and public knowledge necessary...

[feartheflames]

to me that is immensly depressing.

[Reaper]

What does 456 Billion buy?

Simple.

My undying devotion to protect you with every ounce of my being and an unrelenting love only quenched by death.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by looooob

could buy Ed Belfour out of trouble 456 times

Solid

[Flames09]

Well this is what you get when your president is BUSH.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flames09

Well this is what you get when your president is BUSH.

No, its what you get when the administration has put themselves between a rock and a hard place, and are now forced to continue funding the effort in Iraq.

I'm just trying to figure out when it will end.

And for the record, throwing 456 billion at Africa wouldn't accomplish much.

You need people to physically go there and help them.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by Azure

And for the record, throwing 456 billion at Africa wouldn't accomplish much.

You need people to physically go there and help them.

Yup. The corruption in Africa is unbelieveable - the vast majority of that money would go into the warlords coffers and never reach the people that actually need it... or be lost in the ridiculous administration costs of Red Cross.

Maybe if Africa was floating on a huge bed of oil there would be incentive to go over there and "help".

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'll take access to large oil reserves for 600, Alex.

Wrong.

They had that access before the war. All they had to do was write a check...and it was cheaper then.

You control the board still. Next.

[Flames09]

Originally Posted by Azure

No, its what you get when the administration has put themselves between a rock and a hard place, and are now forced to continue funding the effort in Iraq.

I'm just trying to figure out when it will end.

And for the record, throwing 456 billion at Africa wouldn't accomplish much.

You need people to physically go there and help them.

I still don't understand why the US invaded Iraq, "weapons of mass destruction" ??? or OIL?

[Addick]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

Yup. The corruption in Africa is unbelieveable - the vast majority of that money would go into the warlords coffers and never reach the people that actually need it... or be lost in the ridiculous administration costs of Red Cross.

Maybe if Africa was floating on a huge bed of oil there would be incentive to go over there and "help".

You are correct, if the money is just thrown at them it wouldn't do much good considering the prevalent corruption. However, if the effort put into Operation Iraq was spent on Africa results would be possible, but that's not my point. I believe there is a way to spend money on aid to Africa that would see the eradication of certain problems facing the country; diseases and viruses such as AIDS and malaria. The idea is to promise money to pharmaceuticals that can cause change instead of corrupt government officials and aid agencies. Here is an excerpt from an article that I found particularly interesting, the complete article can be found here. Search for the words "Consider malaria" to find the section where the relevant subject matter begins.

Originally Posted by The Economist

Helping the world’s poorest
August 12th, 1999

...

Promise a market
The following approach might work. Rich countries would make a firm pledge to purchase an effective malaria vaccine for Africa’s 25m newborn children each year if such a vaccine is developed. They would even state, based on appropriate and clear scientific standards, that they would guarantee a minimum purchase price—say, $10 per dose—for a vaccine that meets minimum conditions of efficacy, and perhaps raise the price for a better one. The recipient countries might also be asked to pledge a part of the cost, depending on their incomes. But nothing need be spent by any government until the vaccine actually exists.

Even without a vast public-sector effort, such a pledge could galvanise the world of private-sector pharmaceutical and biotechnology firms. Malaria vaccine research would suddenly become hot. Within a few years, a breakthrough of profound benefit to the poorest countries would be likely. The costs in foreign aid would be small: a few hundred million dollars a year to tame a killer of millions of children. Such a vaccine would rank among the most effective public-health interventions conceivable. And, if science did not deliver, rich countries would end up paying nothing at all...

[MelBridgeman]

the comfort of the rich relies on an abundant of the poor.
________
Vaporizer review

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Flames09

I still don't understand why the US invaded Iraq, "weapons of mass destruction" ??? or OIL?

You and me too. The other possibilities, off the top of my head, put forward was to bring democracy to the heathen,
protect the American dollar as the only currency used for oil purchases,
revenge against Saddam for trying to assinate Bush Sr.,
they were a home for terrorists,
they were a threat to Israel,
Bush wanted to enable Armagedon,
to protect Iraqi citizens such as the Kurds,
Bush is an idiot,
Cheney and friends get to make a boatload of money,
and Lanny's favorite, 'they hate us for our freedoms'.
None of them work especially well for me and some are outright lies or are at least based on misinformation while others are based on greed and ego.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

Yup. The corruption in Africa is unbelieveable - the vast majority of that money would go into the warlords coffers and never reach the people that actually need it... or be lost in the ridiculous administration costs of Red Cross.

Maybe if Africa was floating on a huge bed of oil there would be incentive to go over there and "help".

The tragedy is that this corruption is aided and abeted by the West for our own profit.

"But Western govenments, international financial institutions, and transnational corporations do far more harm than merely bolstering and arming tyrannical regimes."


"More money flows out of Africa each year in the form of debt sevice payments, than goes into Africa in the form of aid."

The days of the 'whiteman's burden' as we think of it are over, my friends. It's time we stop actively interfering with Africa to satisfy our own greed. Aid is great but giving Africa a fair shake so they can build their own future is a better answer.

Here's the article, "The Conspiracy Against Africa", by Gerald Caplan.

It's long but a good read by someone with real experience and research. Don't hold me responsible for any increase in your blood pressure.

http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articl...gainst-africa/

[ericschand]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

You and me too. The other possibilities, off the top of my head, put forward was to bring democracy to the heathen,
protect the American dollar as the only currency used for oil purchases,
revenge against Saddam for trying to assinate Bush Sr.,
they were a home for terrorists,
they were a threat to Israel,
Bush wanted to enable Armagedon,
to protect Iraqi citizens such as the Kurds,
Bush is an idiot,
Cheney and friends get to make a boatload of money,
and Lanny's favorite, 'they hate us for our freedoms'.
None of them work especially well for me and some are outright lies or are at least based on misinformation while others are based on greed and ego.

Vulcan, you have pretty much everything on the list there, the reasons
for this war.

"protect the American dollar" - Saddam was ready to convert to Euros.
Heck, Europe wanted him to convert to Euros. Convert to Euros could
cause Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc to convert to Euros for oil trade.
American dollar loses influence and value (which has happened anyways).

" revenge against Saddam for trying to assinate Bush Sr." - People
wondered why did Bush Sr. stop before hitting Baghdad in the first war?
Why not continue and get rid of Saddam? Now we know, Sr was smarter
than that to get involved in a quagmire that we see today. As we now
know Bush Sr. played it right, keep Saddam there to prevent anarchy,
and arm him just enough to keep Iran and others in check.
(IMO, I wish there had been a way to kick Saddam around but at the
time there wasn't :-( )

" they were a home for terrorists" - They did have some terrorists, but
the ones the Americans were after were blood-enemies of Saddam. They
hated him for being secular (and Iraq was much more secular than other
countries in the region), and he hated them for a variety of reasons.

" they were a threat to Israel" - generally only when provoked, and
even then in limited use, due to the first round and it's after effects.
Apparently this wasn't an issue while arming Iraq in the 80's.

" Bush wanted to enable Armagedon" - While corny, he and his cohorts
really seem to believe they are right.

" to protect Iraqi citizens such as the Kurds" - The same ones that
Cheney helped kill in the 80's? The only thing keeping Kurds, es,
Sunnis apart in Iraq was Saddam. Remove him and you end up with...
well, look around Iraq, that's what you end up with.

" Bush is an idiot" - One line I've heard is that actually Bush
is very smart. Look at all the damage he's done whether to the military,
economy, social programs, et al., and yet he's still there. Takes some
smarts to play it out that way. And then to win a second election...!
And then if there were another election he (really his party) would garner
40+% of the vote! So, who are the idiots?

'they hate us for our freedoms' - Nah, they hate "us" because the USA
was more than happy to meddle in outside business and then not make
amends for it. Bin Laden initially only wanted the US out of Saudi Arabia,
and for them to stop meddling there. I can't figure that one out. Because
of the USA, Bin Laden and his family were filthy obscene rich. So you want
to throw out the reason behind this? You would think he would have
more of a beef with Russia who actually invaded the area.

" Cheney and friends get to make a boatload of money" - The question
I have is, if you knew the outcome, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people
dead or wounded, tens of thousands of American soldiers dead or wounded,
would you pay Cheney and friends $500 billion in January 1993 and say,
"You get this money, but no war, and step down now"

BTW, did I not read a while ago the the total cost was $1 TRILLION
for the Iraq war? How is it down to $500 billion?

ers