They have made a killing

[Briar]

They have made a killing


The US has spent a million dollars for every dead Iraqi - is that what they mean by value for money?

Terry Jones

Early this year the Bush administration is to ask Congress to approve an additional $100bn for the onerous task of making life intolerable for the Iraqis. This will bring the total spent on the White House's current obsession with war to almost $500bn - enough to have given every US citizen $1,600 each. I wonder which the voters would have gone for if given the choice: shall we (a) give every American $1,600 or (b) spend the money on bombing a country in the Middle East that doesn't use lavatory paper?

Of course, there's another thing that George Bush could have done with the money: he could have given every Iraqi $18,700. I imagine that would have reduced the threat of international terrorism somewhat. Call me old-fashioned, but I can't help thinking that giving someone $18,700 brings them round to your side more quickly than bombing the hell out of them. They could certainly buy a lot of lavatory paper with it.

In 2002 the house budget committee and the congressional budget office both guesstimated the cost of invading Iraq at approximately $50bn; $500bn seems a bit wide of the mark. What's more, with over half a million dead, it means that the world's greatest military superpower has spent a million dollars for every Iraqi killed. That can't be value for money!

So how on earth could such a vast overspend occur? After all, the US is the flagship of monetary common sense. Well, for starters, in 2003 the White House refused to allow competitive bidding for contracts in Iraq, which is odd for the champions of free enterprise. Then the White House ensured there would be no overseeing of what was spent. In the original Iraq spending bill, which earmarked the first $87bn to go down the drain, there was a provision for the general accounting office to keep a check on things, but that provision was stripped from the bill - even though the Senate had originally voted for it 97 to 0.

...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1983817,00.html

[lapfog_1]

1. Yup, a much better and cheaper solution would have been

to open offices at each border crossing (Kuwait, Jordan, etc) and buy ad space on Al Jazeera which would tell the Iraqi people that for EACH PERSON (man, woman, child, grandparent, etc), we would cut them a check for $10,000 if they promise to stay out of Iraq for the next N years (lets pick 3). Anyone left (and there wouldn't be many) would be invited to hole up in their houses and mosques or face arrest and deportation (with a check!). In return, we get all the oil that we can pump in three years AND we get to search each and every house, shed, and sandhill for WMDs (the reason we were given for going to begin with).
Saddam and his children have to go to some Arab country under exile.
In addition to the above, we would exit and hand over another $100B for the new government for reconstruction and whatever other expenses (new schools, new hospitals, etc) they see fit to provide their people (read our lips, no new palaces). The returning Iraqis would only be able to hire other Iraqis to do this work. We would leave

Total cost $300B. Offset by 3 years supply of oil.

[formercia]

2. Viet Nam was much the same

something like $43,000. for every VC kia. Back in those days, you could buy the whole village for that.

[eridani]

6. That's WAY higher than the inflation rate

Can't find any bargains in mass murder these days. :sarcasm:

[formercia]

7. It's not supposed to be a bargain

war is supposed to generate profits for the Military-Industrial complex.

[NJCher]

3. colorful, vivid communication

By putting the war dollars in this perspective, it reaches home to every British or American citizen. This is what I call "bringing it home."

I'm going to use this article in my classes when I teach students how to make statistics vivid and real to their audience.



Cher

[Martin Eden]

4. The most compelling issue ...

... is that the Iraqi people do not use lavatory paper. Had the American people known that in advance we might not have gotten into such deep shit.

[blm]

5. The 87 billion Kerry voted FOR had accountability - he voted AGAINST the bill with no accountability

that Bush wanted. ALL senators voted for it first, but when accountability was taken OUT of the bill some chose to vote against it.

The corpmedia KNEW it but they chose to push Rove's storyline that Kerry voted for war before he voted against it with no discussion of what actually ccurred.