$4,000,000,000,000

[rio grande]

4 trillion dollars.  That's a conservative estimate of the final costs of the unnecessary wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan.

Not to mention the more than 6,000 U.S. troops and 2,300 contractors that have died since the wars began after Sept. 11. A staggering 550,000 disability claims have been filed with the VA as of 2010. Meanwhile, 137,000 civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq have died in the conflict. (Injuries among U.S. contractors have also not yet been made public, further complicating the calculations of cost.) Nearly 8 million people have been displaced.

Time to stop this madness.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/much-wars-cost-report-says-4-trillion-130934180.html

[Dee]

First of all, I would say that your civilian casualty figures are most likely "low". As far as U.S. contractors, they went to the wars to "make money" on the war. I have no sympathy what so ever in that dept.
The U.S. has been building an occupying empire since WWII, and "nation building" has become part of our culture. There are many here, that "have, and will" justify these wars but, seldom help fight them. They will call it "freeing the oppressed", when in actuality it is "forced compliance" to U.S. policies, and belief systems, on countries with different cultures, and values, that have ABSOLUTELY NO INTEREST in becoming "the next United States".

[briarpatch]

Some cost you will never see figured in to this compilation is the laws enacted to remove our freedoms here. Think patriot act and look at the name they gave it,  (patriot act) my ass.


WTC  inside job?
 

[magooch]

I don't have as much objection to the wars as I do about the way they were conducted.  I believe if a war is worth having, it is worth using our best weapons.  Nuke em.  Fighting wars with grunts is a losing proposition.
 
I didn't know we were at war with Pakistan and what about the cost of all the other wars we've had?  You also have to consider what the cost would be if we failed to retaliate, or react to what some bad actors do.  If we had allowed al Queda to continue its operations in Afghanistan, what would the cost have been?  If the Husseins had been allowed to continue with their evil endeavors, what would have been the eventual costs?
 
I would prefer that in many cases we mind our own business, but history shows that as much as we would like to be a bystander, eventually evildoers will always find a way to make it impossible to ignore them.  I can't help but believe that if we had used a lot more force initially in a couple of these engagements, a lot of successive problems would have been avoided and a lot fewer of our warriors would have been sacrificed.

[Doublebass73]

Well said Dee.

Even if by some miracle we were able to mold these countries into the next US (not going to happen with multiple tribes of people who have hated each other for thousands of years) the cost in American lives is too great to make it worth it. Never mind the figure posted in the subject line of this thread.

[BBF]

I don't have as much objection to the wars as I do about the way they were conducted.  I believe if a war is worth having, it is worth using our best weapons.  Nuke em.  Fighting wars with grunts is a losing proposition.
..................
...................................

That "nuke em" opinion is what perturbs me most.  Hopefully those in the position to enact this have a better grip on the consequences.
If nukes get tossed there are no winners only losers. If wanting to live in a post nuclear world is your wish, count me out !!  It is way past 1945 when you were save on your piece of dirt.
 
 
Note:05-08-2012
 Modified by myself to clear up the meaning

[mcbammer]

When  it  comes  to  war  .  I  whole   heartedly   agree  with  Ron  Pauls  veiws.

[magooch]

My point is that our potential opponents should be on notice that we don't play by their rules and we will not allow war to be viewed as acceptable; i.e., war with the United States would be too terrible to contemplate.  But of course that assumes that the bad guys are capable of rational thoughts.
 
In any case, the scenario of fighting limited wars is not working out so well either.

[rio grande]

My point is that our potential opponents should be on notice that we don't play by their rules and we will not allow war to be viewed as acceptable; i.e., war with the United States would be too terrible to contemplate.  But of course that assumes that the bad guys are capable of rational thoughts.
 
In any case, the scenario of fighting limited wars is not working out so well either.

You are right, and defensive war could certainly qualify as a Just War.
But only if it is guided by morality, which prohibits such things as indiscriminate weapons and civilian targeting, and mandates humane treatment of prisoners.

Preemptive war and interventionism for land, oil, or other gains (for oneself or for a third party nation such as Israel) is nothing more than piracy writ large.

http://www.catholic.com/documents/just-war-doctrine

http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1408

[BBF]

A good example would be the warfare staged during the Colonial expansions by European countries all over the world.

[magooch]

There's what the world needs--wars fought by rules and morality.  If rules and morality were followed, who would need war?  There's one rule that should be our guide--we win.

[Dee]

There's what the world needs--wars fought by rules and morality.  If rules and morality were followed, who would need war?  There's one rule that should be our guide--we win.

Plus 1

[brettcar]

4 Trillion dollars is cheap--what if we had done nothing after we were attacked-- This war would be fought in OUR country. There would be 137,000 dead US civilians, our buildings would be bombed, and our cities attacked. We did not start this war.
 However, we should be doing more. All ammo should be dipped in pig's blood, all dead terrorists should be buried with part of a pig with them. We should use their belief's against them, not apologise to them. Our military are risking their lives for us. They deserve all our support-- let them win this war. Do you know that under Obama's rules of engagement, our troops cannot even use a 50 cal machine gun to return fire-- unless the enemy is using a 50 cal or larger? If they are firing rifles-- we can only return firewith  rifles. Too many stupid rules-- let our military win.

[Doublebass73]

Limited warfare does not work, period. Unless we are willing to go all out to win like we did in WWII then we should not be in the warfare business. To me it is immoral to send an American soldier off to do a job that a bomb can do.

[rio grande]

4 Trillion dollars is cheap--what if we had done nothing after we were attacked-- This war would be fought in OUR country. There would be 137,000 dead US civilians, our buildings would be bombed, and our cities attacked. We did not start this war.
 However, we should be doing more. All ammo should be dipped in pig's blood, all dead terrorists should be buried with part of a pig with them. We should use their belief's against them, not apologise to them. Our military are risking their lives for us. They deserve all our support-- let them win this war. Do you know that under Obama's rules of engagement, our troops cannot even use a 50 cal machine gun to return fire-- unless the enemy is using a 50 cal or larger? If they are firing rifles-- we can only return firewith  rifles. Too many stupid rules-- let our military win.

Yes, of course.
The Afghans and Iraqi's were just waiting to board their Landing Crafts, Aircraft Carriers, fire up their vast air forces, etc, in order to come over here and invade.
And don't forget the camel corps!
Iraq couldn't even beat down Iran with our help, and Afghanistan? Give me a break.

[brettcar]

They don't have to invade us--Open your eyes & look at Israel.  They are in a war. Under Obama, any kind of weapon can be smuggled in from Mexico

[BBF]

Here we going again.................  Israel .......Israel, poor Israel...  blah blah blah !!
How many more tanks, arty, planes, U-Boats and bombs do they need. What happened to the ones the got over the years.

[mannyrock]

 
 
      Alternate strategies:
 
 
      1.  During the times of the ancient Greeks, the world was just as complicated and war torn as it is today.  Sparta was the most powerful Greek city-state as far as infantry was concerned.  But whenever an ally of Sparta was being attacked and asked for help, Sparta rarely sent troops.    Most of the time, they would send just one man, a General.  Upon arrival, the General would tell the ally that he was there to assume full military command, and that unless they did exactly what he said to do 100% of the time, he would simply get on a ship and sail back to Sparta.
 
 
    This strategy was used when Athens decided to invade the island of Sicily and conquer it all for themselves.  A single Spartan General was sent to aid the Sicilians, took charge, and using only the Sicilian troops (and few sent by other allies), he proceeded to destroy both invading fleets sent by the Athenians, as well as about 100,000 Athenian infantry.   (The vast majority of the Athenians who surrendered were simply executed, or they were thrown into a deep rocky gorge, where they were removed and executed one by one.) It permanently ended the naval power and empire of Athens.
 
 
    2.  Or perhaps, we may consider the strategy of modern day France.  They announced many years ago that they were almost never going to send troops anywhere, but that if an invading army attacked them or crossed their borders, they were going to immediately launch their nuclear arsenal against the attacking country.  (France learned its lesson from its colonial defeat in Viet Nam, which we of course ingnored). 
 
 
   Just some thoughts.
 
 
Mannyrock

[LunaticFringeInc]

I don't have as much objection to the
wars as I do about the way they were conducted.  I believe if a war is worth
having, it is worth using our best weapons.  Nuke em.  Fighting wars with grunts
is a losing proposition.
 
I didn't know we were at war with Pakistan and
what about the cost of all the other wars we've had?  You also have to consider
what the cost would be if we failed to retaliate, or react to what some bad
actors do.  If we had allowed al Queda to continue its operations in
Afghanistan, what would the cost have been?  If the Husseins had been allowed to
continue with their evil endeavors, what would have been the eventual costs?
 

I would prefer that in many cases we mind our own business, but history
shows that as much as we would like to be a bystander, eventually evildoers will
always find a way to make it impossible to ignore them.  I can't help but
believe that if we had used a lot more force initially in a couple of these
engagements, a lot of successive problems would have been avoided and a lot
fewer of our warriors would have been sacrificed.

Reality what a concept?  Great post, too bad there isnt a thank you button on this forum, Id have hit it a few times!

[BBF]

I find it ironic that there is a policy of not assassinating Heads of State but the possibility of starting or ending something with nukes appears to be viable option.