Official Comment Count: 1,027,036
« 3D reconstruction of the presynaptic terminal | Main | Shyness is not a psychiatric condition »
Category: Iraq • Middle East
Posted on: September 22, 2007 1:46 PM, by Mo
That's the cost of war in Iraq, according to a new analysis by Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard Public Policy lecturer Linda J. Bilmes.
The money spent on one day of war in Iraq ($720 million) could provide healthcare for more than 420,000 American children or buy homes for 6,500 families.
And let's not forget the cost of war for Iraq itself: up to 1.2 million civilians killed, and the destruction of the country's priceless heritage.
YES! Send me a free issue of Seed.
If I like what I see, I'll receive 5 more issues (6 in all) for just $14.95. That's 50% off the cover price! If I'm not completely satisfied, I'll simply write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing. The free issue is mine to keep.
(Non-U.S. subscribers, click here.)
Comments
YOU HATE FREEDOM.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | September 22, 2007 3:35 PM
This accomplished the end goal of one Grover Norquist, who wants to shrink the federal gov't down to a size where it is small enough to drown in the bath tub.
In essence, it's anti-federalists that have control now because they realize a strong fed is antithetical to unbridled abuse. They're the states rights crowd.
Just look at the beneficiaries of the war in Iraq. Norquist and his ilk get what they want, while big business gets to drain the federal governments coffers while reaping the benefit of a weakened or non-existent fed. After all, who need pesky EPA or OSHA regulations.
Posted by: Tony P | September 22, 2007 6:58 PM
The % of GNP for Iraq is less than that of spending in WWI.
Posted by: kafka | September 23, 2007 10:26 AM
Kafka, ain't that a little like comparing apples to thumbtacks? Iraq has involved 150,000ish soldiers at any time, whereas WWI involved drafting 4 million men in a few years, training them, and then deploying them at a rate of 10,000 men a day.
Another difference -- there was no oil in Germany.
Posted by: David Reagan | September 23, 2007 12:17 PM