You always get these figure thrown up about the cost of the war, well if they are not doing that then they are training and still firing off large amounts of munitions. They often throw in the cost of the troops wages in these minor wars, but still the troops would be paid if they were out there or not. These small wars are the best training grounds that you can find and they get a chance to test the weapons and ideas. Well I can here you say what about those that get killed, well we would expect to lose at least 1% per cent of of our force while training each year and if training for combat that would rise to around 10%. During WW2 our Regiment lost about 13% of it's total strength in training and accidents during training. Also added into these figures of people killed on the front are those that are killed in road accidents now this can happen know matter where you are.

There are white lies, gray lies, black lies. Then there's statistics.

mmarsh, I think your numbers are a bit high. It's more like $500 billion.

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

What a disaster.
That's the tradeoff between private and government. Private is more efficient and has the potential to have extremely positive results. On the other hand they also have a far higher chance of going under. Government... well let's not even get started there but you can always count on whatever they run being there next year.
And I agree. Socialism and Capitalism... either extreme is horrible. I've seen some near-pure capitalistic systems in Southeast Asia. It is simply heart breaking. And there is no justice.

13th

I think it depends it what. The US health care system isnt very efficent whereas the socialist one in Europe and Canada is extremely efficient.

The problem with Capitalism and Privatization is that profit comes first at the expense of everything else. The reason privatization is more efficent is because they only believe in one thing, PROFIT.

Healthcare is a good example. If you really think you can your trust HMO to pay for that $600,000 surgery that will save your life you might want to get your affairs in order first. They will bribe you doctor to prescribe alternate less effect (and less expensive treatment). Their armies of lawyers will find loopholes to nullify your contract, they will pressure doctors to provide the minimum of care, the will make the premiums too high on clients likely to require care.

Thats why some areas need to be privatized.

TOG+Damien

I am talking about projected war costs (i.e when this mess is finally over) not what it currently costs. Furthermore you figures don't include aftermath costs like buying repairing replacing new equipment or the cost of medical treatment for the wounded (which will be for the rest of their lives), unless the compassionate GOP cuts the VA budget again.

true enough...

Furthermore you figures don't include aftermath costs like buying repairing replacing new equipment or the cost of medical treatment for the wounded (which will be for the rest of their lives), unless the compassionate GOP cuts the VA budget again.

Actually, I believe I stated in my post that your costs were projected, not costs to date and I'm pretty sure I mentioned that these would be costs that would be paid over the next decade according to one article and potentially the next sixty+ years according to another one. But what are we doing to do to trim those costs? Not pay our veteran's medical bills? The Army tried that with my grandpa after Korea, came back to bite 'em in the ass hard 45 years later when they were forced to recognize that his health problems were a result of only have three feet of small intestines thanks to a mortar round he took to the gut while in the Army. I would place the cost to date around $605 billion spent so far, it's a very crude number but one that I think is probably quite close to the true costs to date. As for the projected costs, I hope they go up because in some parts of the country our vets are getting sub-par medical treatment thanks to an already stretched budget that has been getting nibbled at for... two decades at least I would guess. But then again, I still hope to get into the Army some day so my view about how much we should spend on health care and retirement benefits for our troops is a little biased.

in attempt to move this back on topic, it's about three times $200 billion, Del Boy.

Thanks for putting the record straight guys - I suspected that would prove to be the case - the quoted $200 billion seemed low to me at the time. A case of someone trying to make the figures match I guess.
Not me tho' - innocent here boss. Apologies.