The economic costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are estimated to total $1.6 trillion. The $1.6 trillion figure, for the period from 2002 to 2008, translates into a cost of $20,900 for a family of four, the report said.

Future economic costs would be even greater. The report estimated that both wars would cost $3.5 trillion between 2003 and 2017. Under that scenario, it would cost a family of four $46,400, the report said.

Meanwhile, "the sum of interest paid on Iraq-related debt from 2003 to 2017 will total over $550 billion," the report said. The government has to make interest payments on the money it borrows to finance the national debt, which recently hit $9 trillion for the first time.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21766479/

Are YOU getting your money's worth? Just imagine the other programs those monies could have funded here at home!

Oh man.

It's not gonna be pretty paying that back. And no. I didn't get any of my moneys worth.

Freedom isn't free.
Freedom costs $1.05.

America! F*ck Yeah!!

Crap, I thought the 20,900 was for a nice little move in ready, two bedroom stick built house about 50 minutes out of
PDX... Either side of the river is fine.

I can't afford to blow the whole 401K on war!

Don't worry, we can always cut taxes and then just borrow the shortfall from Red China, as Bush has done in the past.

Andrew

COMMUNIST CHINA???
WTF!

Sure, the Reds have been bankrolling the US government's debt for the last several years, along with the Japanese and others.

But let's keep up our current policies on Cuba. Wouldn't want to show we support a communist government. Castro is bad.

Andrew

Haven't you heard, Castro is dead.

http://www.uncoveror.com/castro.htm

Unlike many, I don't think it's such a big deal unless BOTH Castros are dead (for real). Raul may be the silent partner but he's just as significant as more well-known his brother.

Andrew

And that report factors in interest payments, and guestimates psycological treatment of vets in the future... it really stretches things beyond the cost of the combat overseas. This is all according to the news report I heard this afternoon on KINK. I don't have a problem with these things being factored in, as long those details are disclosed.

Where is Herb on this!
He is sooooo against Pinko Commies and his Hero DUHbya is giving the United States of America to the Commies!!!!! UNAmerican!
More CRAP from DUHbya and Co.

I forwarded my invoice to Herrbocrite, along with some diuretics for all that water he carries around.

I'm going to make Herb pay for my $20,000+

Mrs. M forced me to go to dictionary.com to look up "diuretics."

The humor of your post now floods me.

I'm all awash myself.

Dr. Maddow (and I think that's just excellent), brought up indirect costs for this war. Comes to about 1.6 billion. (I think --didn't have time to write it down.)

That's about the amount of tax relief Bush made happen!

Think about it. We could be not financing this war, not be owned by other nations so much, and be discussing government "new deal" type programs with far less conflict than we currently have today.

The primary GOP platform appears to be "government does not work". Well, under those that believe government does not work --it's damn clear that it doesn't.

Under those who do believe government can work, and looking back at times in our history when control was with those people, it's obvious it can and does work. It can actually work very well.

Just remember that this next cycle. We basically have to choose between corporate services for profit, meaning we don't matter, only the money does.

Or, we can choose government services where we do matter, and the money matters!

Looking at the New Deal times, and Clinton times, and comparing them to GOP times, and current times, I've seen plenty.

No brainer. Government needs to be populated with people that believe in government.

Another "indirect" cost in the news today:

"Soldiers who have served in Iraq are killing themselves at higher rates than in any other war in which such data have been tracked."

Shane, are you saying that we may not be paying any interest for the Iraq war? Shouldn't that be factored in as a direct cost of the war?

Mrs. M said>>>
"Soldiers who have served in Iraq are killing themselves at higher rates than in any other war in which such data have been tracked."

Seen that on the news as of late??? White House talking about it??? NO press conferences on this recently..... WONDER WHY???

I saw/read it yesterday, but it wasn't a top story, that's for sure.

Not even during November 'Sweeps" or on Veterans Day, though.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N19303337.htm

Soldier suicide rate flucuatews a lot, but its still generally lower than civilians of the same age group.

And there has been very little study on why, maybe its because some of the liberals calling soldiers baby killer etc.

Read it the first paragraph of your link AGAIN, Okie.

That article is almost a year old and it's referring to soldiers still IN Iraq. This is bad enough, but I'm referring to ones who actually make it home ALIVE. Then they kill themselves. Here. Something is very, very wrong here.

"WASHINGTON, Dec 19 (Reuters) - Suicides among U.S. soldiers in Iraq doubled last year over the previous year to return to a level seen in 2003, U.S. Army medical experts said on Tuesday."

And your sensationalistic "babykiller" statement is not probably not relevent here. We already covered the Vietnam version of the mostly urban legend earlier. Times have changed from 40 years ago. Or have they?

Vitology,
I'm not saying we won't be paying interest. I just want to point out that it's factored in to the total, so someone doesn't attempt to add interest to the estimate again.

I know it was factored in to the total and the article was pretty clear about that as well. If I buy a car and get a loan, I count the interest paid on that loan as a cost of purchasing that vehicle. Same thing goes for Iraq.

Trix sez: "I'm going to make Herb pay for my $20,000+"

I hate to disappoint you but the only things of value the Herbster has is a couple dozen gnomes. About .75 each. That's it.

If you have to ask the price, you probably can't affore it.

But you also have to ask yourself, what would it have cost if we hadn't done it. Would oil now be 200 or 300 dollars per bbl, how many more terrorist attqacks would have originated from Afghanistan training bases, would Saddam have gotten a nuclear weapon, would he have launched scuds with wmd at the Saudi and other oil fields?

Nwokie writes:
But you also have to ask yourself, what would it have cost if we hadn't done it. Would oil now be 200 or 300 dollars per bbl, how many more terrorist attqacks would have originated from Afghanistan training bases, would Saddam have gotten a nuclear weapon, would he have launched scuds with wmd at the Saudi and other oil fields?

Reliable intelligence before the run-up to the 2003 invasion said Saddam was at least a few years from getting a nuclear weapon; after the invasion we learned he had no real nuclear program after all. So, I'd say the answer is NO, Saddam WOULD NOT have gotten a nuclear weapon by now. NO, he probably would not have launched scud missile attacks. More US air strikes would have kept in check, like the devastating 1998 Desert Fox strikes that nearly toppled his regime and destroyed his remaining WMDs capabilities.

Afghanistan? We had to do that one - any president would have. But the point you miss is that had we not had to refocus so many resources on Iraq, we would have been able to focus on Afghanistan and other real terrorist problems exclusively. The best people and translators would have been on it, looking for bin Laden instead of looking for Saddam and non-existent WMDs in Iraq.

And had we not invaded Iraq, lots of young fundamentalist muslim extremists would not have gone to Iraq to learn the fine arts of terrorism. That graduate school for terrorists should never have been opened.

Andrew

Nwokie saked - " Would oil now be 200 or 300 dollars per bbl,"

No.

" how many more terrorist attqacks would have originated from Afghanistan training bases

Zero.

" would Saddam have gotten a nuclear weapon,"

No.

" would he have launched scuds with wmd at the Saudi and other oil fields?"

No.

There. Now that you know that, do you still feel it was all worth it? And if you answer " Yes. It is all worth it. Even though none of those scenarios would have happened." then please, by all means, stake out a real claim for once. Tell me at what point it would NOT be worth it. Name 4 of your top reasons that, if in place, would make it not worth it to you.