or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › $8000 for each Iraqi citizen???
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

$8000 for each Iraqi citizen???

post #1 of 25
Thread Starter 
I just had a startling thought. If the war in Iraq costs $200 billion and there are 25 million Iraqi citizens, then that is $8000 for each Iraqi.

It seems like if beforehand we had brought in the troops and simply handed every Iraqi citizen $8000 worth of housing or food they would have loved us. Then we could have went in, blasted the shit out of Saddam, and then truly been greeted as liberators. People with $8000 worth of free stuff aren't going to attack you, they are going to rat on the few insurgents that would be attacking.

So after we get out of Iraq, why don't we just offer a $200 billion deal to some backwards country in return for moving to a full democracy? We give them some money to win their hearts, and then supply the military to take out the bad guys.

Isn't it outrageous that in a country full of desperately poor people we've burned $8000 for each and every poor person but yet nothing's been accomplished and they basically hate us?
post #2 of 25
I agree. The war in Iraq was a mistake.

Of course Bush, Putin and the other oil pigs will be happy to fight over the sweet crude there.

Fellowship
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #3 of 25
Quote:
Originally posted by spindler
I just had a startling thought. If the war in Iraq costs $200 billion and there are 25 million Iraqi citizens, then that is $8000 for each Iraqi.

It seems like if beforehand we had brought in the troops and simply handed every Iraqi citizen $8000 worth of housing or food they would have loved us. Then we could have went in, blasted the shit out of Saddam, and then truly been greeted as liberators. People with $8000 worth of free stuff aren't going to attack you, they are going to rat on the few insurgents that would be attacking.

So after we get out of Iraq, why don't we just offer a $200 billion deal to some backwards country in return for moving to a full democracy? We give them some money to win their hearts, and then supply the military to take out the bad guys.

Isn't it outrageous that in a country full of desperately poor people we've burned $8000 for each and every poor person but yet nothing's been accomplished and they basically hate us?

The US spends more than anyone on relief efforts and all kinds of assistance. By your measure the world should love the US already.

Seems to say a lot about the rest of the world.
post #4 of 25
Technically, it's not even close to $8000 for each Iraqi citizen. Of the money actually spent so far, it is like 50% to the Pentagon, 30% to favored contractors, 15% to the favored sub-contractors of the contractors (who aren't necessarily Iraqi), then maybe it's 5% that has actually made it into the hands of Iraqi citizens.

Of the 20G USD for Iraqi reconstruction, only about 25 to 50% of it has actually gone into intended Iraqi projects and hands, and it is likely the 25% number ($5G). So its more like $400 for each Iraqi citizen and some large sum of money for the relative non-Iraqi few administering some sort of service.

Your right, after the invasion, the USA should have actually done something like give them some money, instead of giving it to the Bush friendly military-industrial complex.
post #5 of 25
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
The US spends more than anyone on relief efforts and all kinds of assistance. By your measure the world should love the US already.

Seems to say a lot about the rest of the world.

Yeah, I suppose the world shouldn't mind that we're spending more per year on the military occupation of Iraq than the sum total of *ALL* international aid given by Americans, by both government and private citizens.

Annual US international assistance: < $60B
Annual direct cost of Iraq occupation: > $80B

You may think it's a ridiculous comparison, but many people around the world just think it's ridiculous.
post #6 of 25
Quote:
Originally posted by Towel
Yeah, I suppose the world shouldn't mind that we're spending more per year on the military occupation of Iraq than the sum total of *ALL* international aid given by Americans, by both government and private citizens.

Annual US international assistance: < $60B
Annual direct cost of Iraq occupation: > $80B

You may think it's a ridiculous comparison, but many people around the world just think it's ridiculous.

I love the "progressive" mindset.

How about you see what the average yearly spending on relief/aid/rescue vs. average yearly spending on war making, for say the past 30 to 50 tears. Then you might have a comparison.

If you nitpick a year or two in the middle of a conflict/war you are not going to get a fair comparison.

Edit: Perhaps compare that with other nation's war/relief spending. Maybe Soviet Union or Germany or perhaps Iraq. Compare percentage of GDP and total dollars. Unless of course you are only trying to pick and choose your info to suit your political agenda.

That doesn't happen here, does it?
post #7 of 25
The rest of the world is full of shit, NaplesX. I recommend you cut off dependency on the rest of the world and seal your borders and live a self-dependent life. To start with, please remove all foreign goods in your household and stop wearing clothes made by cheap labour in a third world country. Also, stop using gasoline bought from the middle east.

Can't do it, eh? The US cannot survive without the rest of the world. Deal with it and start to deal with them better.
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
post #8 of 25
Thread Starter 
THT wrote

"Of the money actually spent so far, it is like 50% to the Pentagon, 30% to favored contractors, 15% to the favored sub-contractors of the contractors (who aren't necessarily Iraqi)"

But we might have not spent a lot of that money if there was no insurgency. So instead of sending in 150,000 troops to fight a war, we could have just sent 50,000 troops into one corner of Iraq. We could have spent some money to build a hospital or increase food production. With that, we could have won the hearts and minds of, say, 1 million Iraqis. So that's 4% of the country that wont be involved in the insurgency, which makes things easier. Then you kinda do that piece by piece. Get everyone else on your side and then in the end go into Baghdad and fight Saddam.
post #9 of 25
Quote:
Originally posted by spindler
THT wrote

"Of the money actually spent so far, it is like 50% to the Pentagon, 30% to favored contractors, 15% to the favored sub-contractors of the contractors (who aren't necessarily Iraqi)"

But we might have not spent a lot of that money if there was no insurgency. So instead of sending in 150,000 troops to fight a war, we could have just sent 50,000 troops into one corner of Iraq. We could have spent some money to build a hospital or increase food production. With that, we could have won the hearts and minds of, say, 1 million Iraqis. So that's 4% of the country that wont be involved in the insurgency, which makes things easier. Then you kinda do that piece by piece. Get everyone else on your side and then in the end go into Baghdad and fight Saddam.

It doesn't matter how much money you throw at, islamo-thugs will hate you for trying or hate you for not trying. I know that is a concept you "progressives" can't grasp. But it has been proven true on many occasions

From the stories i am hearing, the majority of Iraqis are fine with the progress and appreciate the help. Of course you media outlets won't tell you that.

Of course you won't dig any deeper, you might find out things that go against your partisan agenda.

I don't have aq problem with most of the world. So you point is senseless. We are talking about a handful of countries that have an anti-US agenda.
post #10 of 25
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Seems to say a lot about the rest of the world.

Yeah, it says they don't like foreign tanks rolling around in their front yards and bombs being dropped on their houses.

SHOCKING!
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #11 of 25
Quote:
Originally posted by spindler
I just had a startling thought. If the war in Iraq costs $200 billion and there are 25 million Iraqi citizens, then that is $8000 for each Iraqi.

With $200bn, you could have bought Hussein and his gang out of power and had enough money over to rebuild the country. OTOH, it would not have gone to the deep pockets of Boeing, Gen Dynamics and the rest of the military-industrial complex.
post #12 of 25
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I don't have aq problem with most of the world. So you
point is senseless. We are talking about a handful of countries that have an anti-US agenda.

Care to list that handful? Just curious...
It's Better To Be Hated For What You Are Than To Be Loved For What You Are Not
Reply
It's Better To Be Hated For What You Are Than To Be Loved For What You Are Not
Reply
post #13 of 25
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
The US spends more than anyone on relief efforts and all kinds of assistance. By your measure the world should love the US already.

Seems to say a lot about the rest of the world.

From todays NYTimes:

Quote:
Americans give 15 cents per day per person in official development assistance to poor countries. The average American spends four times that on soft drinks daily.
[...] as a share of our economy, our contribution still left us ranked dead last among 22 top donor countries.

We gave 15 cents for every $100 of national income to poor countries. Denmark gave 84 cents, the Netherlands gave 80 cents, Belgium gave 60 cents, France gave 41 cents, and Greece gave 21 cents (that was the lowest share, beside our own).

It is sometimes said that Americans make up for low official aid with private charitable donations. Nope. By OECD calculations, private donations add 6 cents a day to the official U.S. figure - meaning that we still give only 21 cents a day per person.
It's Better To Be Hated For What You Are Than To Be Loved For What You Are Not
Reply
It's Better To Be Hated For What You Are Than To Be Loved For What You Are Not
Reply
post #14 of 25
Yeah... we give $8000 per person, and in return take 100,000 invaluable lives. And the oil and all the rest of the no-bid deals too. But that's just like ketchup in our bread. Its extra.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #15 of 25
Quote:
Originally posted by SpcMs
From todays NYTimes:

Liberal mindset in action.

Total numbers. What are those?

You won't quote those will you?
post #16 of 25
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Liberal mindset in action.

Total numbers. What are those?

You won't quote those will you?

Stupid mindset in action. Or are you suggesting that next time we discuss unemployment we should compare absolute numbers between the US and friggin' Luxembourg? Duh...
It's Better To Be Hated For What You Are Than To Be Loved For What You Are Not
Reply
It's Better To Be Hated For What You Are Than To Be Loved For What You Are Not
Reply
post #17 of 25
Quote:
Originally posted by SpcMs
Stupid mindset in action. Or are you suggesting that next time we discuss unemployment we should compare absolute numbers between the US and friggin' Luxembourg? Duh...

The US consistently gives 30% of the total global relief funds. You do the math.

And to clarify, are you talking about private, government, or both combined.?

I love the way you guys immediately resort to name calling. Quite 5th grade don't you think?
post #18 of 25
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
The US consistently gives 30% of the total global relief funds. You do the math.

And to clarify, are you talking about private, government, or both combined.?

I love the way you guys immediately resort to name calling. Quite 5th grade don't you think?

Read the article i quoted again. It says the US is the 22nd out of 22 countries when it comes to relief funds per $100 BNP, even when you combine private and government in the US and just government everywhere else.
And i'll apologize for the 'namecalling' if you admit that comparing absolute numbers between countries was indeed kinda, mmm, stupid.
It's Better To Be Hated For What You Are Than To Be Loved For What You Are Not
Reply
It's Better To Be Hated For What You Are Than To Be Loved For What You Are Not
Reply
post #19 of 25
Quote:
Originally posted by SpcMs
Read the article i quoted again. It says the US is the 22nd out of 22 countries when it comes to relief funds per $100 BNP, even when you combine private and government in the US and just government everywhere else.
And i'll apologize for the 'namecalling' if you admit that comparing absolute numbers between countries was indeed kinda, mmm, stupid.

No, you need to conduct yourself in a civil manner. Do you actually think I am going to engage in negotiations with someone that attacks for no apparent reason? Anyway...

What counts is action boots on the ground and aid to the victims and money in dollar amounts. And not a per $100 breakdown.

You are using misleading statistics to prove what?

Have you read how much food and water the military has delivered directly to victims?

Something like 100000 lb. of food in the last 24 hours. Also water and medical supplies.

The UN is now thanking the US for it much needed help.

I really hope that you sent a large chunk of cash to an appropriate charity before you decided to disparage the US and it's efforts. Perhaps you are booking a flight right now to indonesia to lend a hand?

My experience with people tells me that none of the latter is true, so stop the drama.
post #20 of 25
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
No, you need to conduct yourself in a civil manner. Do you actually think I am going to engage in negotiations with someone that attacks for no apparent reason? Anyway...

What counts is action boots on the ground and aid to the victims and money in dollar amounts. And not a per $100 breakdown.

You are using misleading statistics to prove what?

Have you read how much food and water the military has delivered directly to victims?

Something like 100000 lb. of food in the last 24 hours. Also water and medical supplies.

The UN is now thanking the US for it much needed help.

I really hope that you sent a large chunk of cash to an appropriate charity before you decided to disparage the US and it's efforts. Perhaps you are booking a flight right now to indonesia to lend a hand?

My experience with people tells me that none of the latter is true, so stop the drama.

Well excuse me for disagreeing with you based on reasonable and measurable facts. I was not discrediting the US efforts, i was discrediting your claim. Please provide one single misleading statistic I posted. And my or your personal efforts in this matter are irrelevant to the discussion so why even go there?
It's Better To Be Hated For What You Are Than To Be Loved For What You Are Not
Reply
It's Better To Be Hated For What You Are Than To Be Loved For What You Are Not
Reply
post #21 of 25
Quote:
Originally posted by SpcMs
Well excuse me for disagreeing with you based on reasonable and measurable facts. I was not discrediting the US efforts, i was discrediting your claim. Please provide one single misleading statistic I posted. And my our your personal efforts in this matter are irrelevant to the discussion so why even go there?

You were arguing, I am assuming, my claim that the US spends more than anyone on these types of things. You then quote an article that seems to say just the opposite. I am talking absolute numbers. You are obviously enamored by statistics. Which is fine, but at least know there are other statistics that actually mean something. I am not sure how you actually discredited my statement. You may have shed some light how it breaks down, but you only pointed out the sheer potential. 240 billion a year in humanitarian donations by the citizens of this country is nothing to sneeze at. Look it up my friend. Don't bank on NYT or any outlet for that matter.

The stats used are misleading, of course leave it to the NYT to do just that. Leave it to the ABB crowd to blindly latch onto such things. Once again what is the point of your argument?

Oh yeah, post a link, so we can read the whole article. That would be appreciated.

You can disagree with me all you want. I can't fault you for that. I'm just a guy expressing my thoughts and opinions. Just like you.
post #22 of 25
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I am talking absolute numbers. You are obviously enamored by statistics. Which is fine, but at least know there are other statistics that actually mean something. I am not sure how you actually discredited my statement. You may have shed some light how it breaks down, but you only pointed out the sheer potential. 240 billion a year in humanitarian donations by the citizens of this country is nothing to sneeze at. Look it up my friend. Don't bank on NYT or any outlet for that matter.

Oh yeah, post a link, so we can read the whole article. That would be appreciated.

I promise this is my last reply
If you can't see talking absolute numbers when comparing anything the US does against, for example, Luxembourg or even Italy doesn't make much sense, I don't know what I can say to convince you otherwise.
I am intrigued by the 240 billion number though, cause that would be roughly 2% of BNP (this is from my very bad memory so please correct me), much more than the 0.6% implied in the NYTimes article and indeed much more than any other country. Maybe you can link to a more credible source than the NYTimes for that number?
The link to the NYTimes article requires subscription btw, but anything to please you:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/05/op...05kris.html?th

Ok, thanks to the Internets i found a reference of the 240 billion on no other than Foxnews.com. Of course the 240 billion is a misleading statistic because it includes national causes. The real amount of international relief is 5 billion. Which btw, is exactly the same as the $.06 per $100 I quoted in my post.
It's Better To Be Hated For What You Are Than To Be Loved For What You Are Not
Reply
It's Better To Be Hated For What You Are Than To Be Loved For What You Are Not
Reply
post #23 of 25
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
240 billion a year in humanitarian donations by the citizens of this country is nothing to sneeze at. Look it up my friend.

Speaking of "looking it up", do you have a link for that statistic? Every source I've seen, including the USAID one I cited near the top of this thread and the OCED one the NYTimes cited, puts our total International aid at less than one-quarter of your number. Perhaps you are confusing private charitable giving with international humanitarian aid?

You might also note that the US's recent $350M pledge is less than one-tenth of the global total of $3.6 billion. In absolute terms, we're fourth, behind Australia ($810M), Germany ($680M) and Japan ($500M). Even adding our $200M in private donations doesn't put us any closer to the top. According to CNN, both Germans ($200M) and Brits ($146) have been about as generous in absolute terms, and probably more generous per capita. However, our military contribution is surely unique, as always.
post #24 of 25
Quote:
Originally posted by SpcMs
I promise this is my last reply
If you can't see talking absolute numbers when comparing anything the US does against, for example, Luxembourg or even Italy doesn't make much sense, I don't know what I can say to convince you otherwise.
I am intrigued by the 240 billion number though, cause that would be roughly 2% of BNP (this is from my very bad memory so please correct me), much more than the 0.6% implied in the NYTimes article and indeed much more than any other country. Maybe you can link to a more credible source than the NYTimes for that number?
The link to the NYTimes article requires subscription btw, but anything to please you:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/05/op...05kris.html?th

Ok, thanks to the Internets i found a reference of the 240 billion on no other than Foxnews.com. Of course the 240 billion is a misleading statistic because it includes national causes. The real amount of international relief is 5 billion. Which btw, is exactly the same as the $.06 per $100 I quoted in my post.

60% or more of that number goes to organizations that spend it abroad.

Not to mention the capitalistic efforts in the range of 150 billion that goes abroad to develop trade.

The numbers you guys are stuck on is just that, numbers that don't reflect or even close to reflect actual contribution from the US to the world.

You can quote numbers all day, but they are easily disproved simply by observing world events.
post #25 of 25
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
You can quote numbers all day, but they are easily disproved simply by observing world events.

What a perfect, succint summary of the right-wing philosophy. Never let facts get in the way.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › $8000 for each Iraqi citizen???