By the numbers...
Fri, 2005-04-29 14:27
#1
By the numbers...
By the numbers….the cost of war in Iraq.
Here is a little food for thought for those of you participating in upcoming elections. What are you doing to improve life on this planet?
There is no public available running total of Enemy combatants killed by US Forces. The closest estimate is "bushels."
US Wounded in action (March 2003- April 2005) 11,888
US Killed in Action (March 03-April 05) 1,576
GB Killed in Action (March 03 - April 05) 87
Other Coalition KIA (March 03 - April 05) 90
Journalist Killed in Iraq (March 03-April 05) 40
Iraqi Police/Guardsmen Killed (March 03-April 05) 455
Source: http://icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx
Civilians Killed in Iraq (March 03-April 05) Min=21,239 / Max=23,106
(It's hard to count so many accurately, see web page for explanation)
Source:
US Monetary costs courtesy of
(it is still counting upwards)
$166,224,000,000
That is 166.2 Billion Dollars….Roughly $ 3000 per second.
At this price, the US could have immunized every child in the world for 55 years.
Or
The US could have funded global anti-hunger efforts for 6 years.
Or
The US could have funded global AIDS programs for 16 years.
Or
The US could have hired over 2 million public school teachers for one year.
Or
The US could have build 1.5 million housing units.
Or
We could have done much more to improve just about anything we wanted.
Who's your daddy?
Liana
all those who say it is worth it, to get rid of one dictator, need their heads testing.
Enzo
I hate those sorts of statistics. What a world.
What to do though? What to do?
Radiodenver
I see three choices...
1. Support it.
2. Oppose it.
3. Ignore it.
justyn_thyme
There is no motivated and voting constituency for those other activities. They can not be broadcast on television and they don't create loud noises or flashing lights. It is also much more difficult to portray inaction on those items as a threat to national security. Hence, they lose.
I would have gladly settled for simply reducing the national debt and reducing the budget deficit. Unfortunately, that has the same weaknesses, though it does have a voting constituency which is becoming motivated.
Enzo
You're right. And I have to be honest, all too often I ignore it because I feel it's futile opposing it.
I oppose when I talk about it. I oppose when I think about it. But where's the action? And what action am I supposed to take?
Protests are futile, voting for different governments in is futile, I don't see any kind of 'people power' that works. EG Iraq war protests: if that didn't cahnge anything, what will?
Within a capitalist 'democracy' like ours, there is little scope for major overhaul. Having said that, if someone said, 'right, we'll get together, we'll do this and we'll make a difference', I'd be first in line.
I know it's a defeatist attiude but as far as global and local fundemental morality goes...well, it's gone.
Ben
Radiodenver
Here is the flaw in thinking....
"you have no power"
You do have power. One person at a time....you vote your conviction, not your neighbors, not the talking heads on television, not the school teachers, not your papa or momma, you vote your conviction. That is your responsibility in a democracy. If you don't show up and vote, you are ignoring the situation. If you lose, you lose, if you win you win....if you do nothing, you're a parasite on the ass of society.
Vote!
Enzo
I always vote.
But I used to vote for the party that best suited me. Now there is none. So yeah, I'll vote but really I'm voting against parties that REALLY don't suit me, rather than for a party that represents all/some/any of my views.
It's only a democracy if people's views are represented by the parties for which they vote.
I think we should have compulsary voting (unpopular as that would be), but include a 'none of the above' on the ballot paper. And I think 'none of the above' would win and I think that says more about our 'democratic representation' than anything else.
Ben
mississippi
Don't you all think that prevention is better than cure?
Why DOES the world sit by whilst dictators emerge and become such a problem that they need removing in the first place?
Tony Cook
He would have been removed if the US had wanted to sort out the Israel/Palestine situation. That is at the core of all of this.
And I agree - vote! Even if you spoil your ballot paper then you are registering your vaote. If 20% of the population spoilt their papers - then action would be taken to create a better democracy than the highly flawed one we have at present.
mississippi
A spoilt vote is just foot-stamping. If you really care make your vote positive, even if it's in a safe seat.
Liana, stamping foot
i shall be spoiling my paper.
mississippi
Foot-stamper.
Liana, in a fou...
could be worse
justyn_thyme
What the hell is 'spoiling your ballot paper?' Sounds like the opening of fergal's story about the kitty litter box.
As for voting, I voted for John Kerry last time around. Incredibly, he actually carried the State where I was required to send my ballot. I didn't think Connecticut was a blue State. Maybe it was just where I lived in Greenwich that was full-tilt GOP. Still, Bush won. Now what am I supposed to do? Answer: basically nothing--just hope he doesn't completely ruin everything before we can get a new President.
The good news, at least in a way, is that he was barely two months into the second term and his whole schtick started to unravel like a $3 suit in a piss storm. It's a lot like the Iraq invasion actually: brilliantly successful military blitzkrieg (election victory) and no freaking plan and narry a clue what to do after winning (war or election). Staggering when you think about it--regardless of your position on the invasion in the first place. It's a perfect example of magical thinking. Any people think Micheal Jackson lives in a fantasy world.
As for Israel-Palestine--there was no way to do anything with those clowns before Aridrat died. Now there is at least a chance. Sort of.
Radiodenver
Yeah, what is spoiling your ballot?
archergirl
I think it's like the equivalent of punching out all the chads to invalidate the ballot...
mississippi
It's anything from voting for every one to writing FUCK YOU on the slip
justyn_thyme
What good does that do?
In the US it's possible to write in the name of anyone, so you'll find the predictable votes for Donald Duck et al. An invalid ballot is simply thrown away. Or in some cases, ballots that don't go the way the election observers want are thrown away, but that's a different subject.
Enzo
And that's why I said that there should be a clear opportunity to say, "none of the above".
Tony, I agree but I think the problem is, for as long as there is the option of not voting, apathy will keep people from spoiling their paper. I'd like to think that what you are saying is true, that if 20% spoiled their paper we'd have a massive democratic overhaul but I don't see it. I think compulsary voting with an option of voting for none of the parties is the only way to beat the apathy. And like I said, I think we'd see much, much more than 20% not voting for any of the parties.
Personally, i am increasingly tempted spoil my paper. I've supported one party all my life and I've been let down. I suspect, ultimately though, the cross will go in their box.
Ben..
Liana
i'm tempted to spoil mine in the most obnoxious way imaginable. Ben, if they've let you down, don't vote for them. Make your protest.
justyn_thyme
In the 60s I recall a comedian suggeting that every ballot offer the choice of 'somebody else.' The votes wouldn't count in that whoever got the most votes would win, but the winner would be put on notice that even though he/she won, X% preferred 'somebody else.' Sounded like a great idea to me, except that it could be a spoiler vote, like Ralph Nadir.