Iraq war cost boston $655,300,000.00

[palindrome]

Cool site which somehow shows the cost of the Iraq war for each city in the country. Boston came in at $655,300,000.00 and MA as a whole came in just under 9 billion. New York city was $10,640,500,000.00, Chicago: $3,334,100,000.00, San Francisco: $1,075,800,000, and Los Angeles: $3,399,800,000.


http://nationalpriorities.org/warcitycost


Political affiliation aside, i think we can all agree that the 318 billion spent total would have been much better used to secure our ports, borders, public trans and airports. We'd probably have some money left over too.

 

[TimmyG]

Why don't you post how much Boston cost the rest of the US because of the big dig?

 

[Lurker]

Yep saving money is great, until someone kills you.

Defending against terrorism is a losing battle since there are an infinite number of ways to circumvent any defensive measures. The money would be better spent Keeping terrorists on the defensive. Its far more effective to kill them before they strike than to fortify ever possible target they may strike. /speaking as someone who used to work on high security buildings.

I wish more money was going to intelligence and covert ops, but the world is too PC, obsessed with 'feelings', world opinion (notice how the terrorists aren't scared of world opinion, they rather enjoy manipulating the media. I'm sure they really get their jollies as any legitimate government is paralyzed with guilt for any civilian deaths while the terrorists themselves literally can paint the town red and only be labeled 'militants' or 'activists', even when the celebrate their mass murders with parades and video tapes), and scoring political points to actually do anything effective.Doing everything half ass-ed, if not ignoring the problem entirely, because of not wanting to deal with killing bad people is just going to get more people killed overall in the long run.

I am absolutely sick that terrorists can get the same legal protections as members of legally recognized nation state without belonging to a nation state or actually abiding by those laws themselves. A crazed (or simply downright evil) man with a weapon doesn't give a rats ass about words on paper, the world needs to realize that all the treaties, laws, and bullshit negotiation isn't going to do diddly to people who don't care about 'feelings' and will kill to get what they want.

/Yeah this is flame bait, but after putting up with 23 years of bullshit in the USSR, Internet arguments actually seem less futile.

 

[Ron Newman]

We invaded a country that has never done anything to us and that we had no legitimate beef with. This had nothing to do with defense against terrorism. It was simple imperialism, intended for the sole benefit of oil companies. I am glad that it is failing, and hope not to see it repeated.

 

[bosdevelopment]

We invaded a country that has never done anything to us and that we had no legitimate beef with. This had nothing to do with defense against terrorism. It was simple imperialism, intended for the sole benefit of oil companies. I am glad that it is failing, and hope not to see it repeated.

pinko.

 

[DudeUrSistersHot]

We invaded a country that has never done anything to us and that we had no legitimate beef with. This had nothing to do with defense against terrorism. It was simple imperialism, intended for the sole benefit of oil companies. I am glad that it is failing, and hope not to see it repeated.

I'm no supporter of the Iraq war for a number of reasoms. But to say we invaded for oil is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Really, it just doesn't pass the laugh test, never mind basic logic. We invaded because the neo-conservatives had this grand but naive vision of bringing democracy to the Middle East.

And to say you're glad it's failing is disgusting. You're basically saying you're glad our troops are getting killed. We're in the war. I'm not the type that's going to say if you want to withdraw you want to cut and run. However, while "staying the course" is a legitimate, if stupid, idea, and setting a timetable is another valid idea, saying that you hope we lose makes me want to ship you off to Guananamo Bay, to put it mildly.

 

[LeTaureau]

We invaded because the neo-conservatives had this grand but naive vision of bringing democracy to the Middle East.

This is not true. The Bush administration's main goal was to topple Hussein's government, without giving any thought as to what would come next. The conservatives never a had a vision grand enough to follow through with the invasion. And now we're stuck in a quagmire, a political fiasco for the Republicans. That is what I am glad about. That the Republicans screwed this up so bad that hopefully, they will be ousted from power in the next round of elections.

And I agree with Ron that Bush is in cahoots will Big Oil.

 

[Patrick]

Yep saving money is great, until someone kills you.

Defending against terrorism is a losing battle since there are an infinite number of ways to circumvent any defensive measures. The money would be better spent Keeping terrorists on the defensive. Its far more effective to kill them before they strike than to fortify ever possible target they may strike.

Lurker, you do realize that Hussein, and therefore Iraq, is not officially connected in any way to the 9/11 attacks, right? Therefore, your argument, while correct in my mind also, doesn't necessarily hold for the Iraq war we are currently in. Unless you meant 'terrorist' in the broad sense of the word, as in terrorizing Iraqi citizens. I dont mean to make you seem ignorant by asking you that question, but I saw a poll a month or so ago that said something like 60% of Bush supporters thought that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, and I just wnated to make sure that we are all on the same page here. My mother, for instance (a bush supporter) gets so confused when I tell her that we invaded Iraq in 2003, she insists it was 2001. I try to explain the whole afghanistan thing to her, but it is useless, the media has created this image of Iraq as somehow connected with 9/11. even if it was unintentional, it has stuck with many people.. anyhow, thats why I asked. It is funny what kind of answers you will get when you ask people stuff, like what the difference between an arab and a persian is (most have no idea) or what year 9/11 happened in (apparently, 40% of the country does not remember it was 2001).

/Yeah this is flame bait, but after putting up with 23 years of bullshit in the USSR, Internet arguments actually seem less futile.

Haha, I can imagine!

 

[Patrick]

We invaded a country that has never done anything to us and that we had no legitimate beef with. This had nothing to do with defense against terrorism. It was simple imperialism, intended for the sole benefit of oil companies. I am glad that it is failing, and hope not to see it repeated.

Not for the "sole" benefit. That is a secondary outcome. We invaded Iraq for a machiavelian belief that if you pre-emptively strike at your enemies, or in this case to secure your interests, than you will be far better off than if you wait until it is too late. We have had beef with Iraq for almost two decades. But that aside, it has been american foreign policy for almost one hundred years to secure access to foreign oil reserves, thats why living in our country is so easy compared to everywhere else in the world: our government takes military action to assure a high standard of living back home. I dont always agree with it either, but it has been our policy historically, for both major political parties. I cannot agree with you that you are glad we are failing over there, because although I dont agree with the war necessarily, I have friends over there and it must really suck to have such a lack of support for their efforts. pull the troops out, i say, but until we do, we need to support the people over there, its only right.

 

[Patrick]

We invaded because the neo-conservatives had this grand but naive vision of bringing democracy to the Middle East.

This is not true. The Bush administration's main goal was to topple Hussein's government, without giving any thought as to what would come next. The conservatives never a had a vision grand enough to follow through with the invasion. And now we're stuck in a quagmire, a political fiasco for the Republicans. That is what I am glad about. That the Republicans screwed this up so bad that hopefully, they will be ousted from power in the next round of elections.

And I agree with Ron that Bush is in cahoots will Big Oil.

Dude is right about the democracy part, but of course Bush is also in cahoots with big oil. The democracy effort is sincere, but naive. The reason Bush and others want democracy to survive over there is because there is this theory that liberal democracies do not go to war with one another (there has never been an instance where this theory can be disproved) and they usually become better trading partners, as well as the thought that hopefully they would be a domino process instigator. The countries in the middle east (for the most part) are not even a century old, some much younger than even that, so the belief that their politics can be changed so easily might not be that incorrect. However, there are undoubtedly lots of things going on behind the scenes that shouldnt be, too, like big oil connections etc. This is indeed a quagmire, i have to agree.

 

[palindrome]

Why don't you post how much Boston cost the rest of the US because of the big dig?

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1397.html

:wink:

 

[cityrecord]

Why don't you post how much Boston cost the rest of the US because of the big dig?

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1397.html

:wink:

Not only that, but people in Massachusetts have helped pay for interstate highway projects across the country, while at the same time having very few interstate miles within the state. Furthermore, the Iraq war will ultimately cost Bostonians much more then $635,000,000--much of the money for the war is deficit spending on which interest is paid.

Palindrome has it right: no one should complain about the amount of federal money Massachusetts receives when compared to deadbeat welfare states like North Dakota.

The full rundown can be found here:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/347.html#ftsbs-timeseries-20060316

 

[TimmyG]

Maybe a flat tax would help to alleviate some of the unfairness in taxation.

 

[tocoto]

Terrorists are a real threat and they must be met with deadly force since that is what they subject us to. They are filled with zealous hate but they fight smart.

We fight dumb. They are ruining our economy. We are headed toward militarism, facism and the loss of our freedoms (and therefore our country) as we ignorantly fight these people.

We must adopt an entirely new approach. It has to be intelligence based, multi-pronged, deadly, affordable and winnable. We must be vigilante that our country does not become a dictatorship in the process. The war in Iraq is an expensive waste of resources and lives, and they know it even if we don't.

We have beefed up our intelligence and security, that's good but not nearly enough has been done. Look at all the problems we have on practically a daily basis as our airline, conventon and tourist industries founder.

We need to be able to kill the leaders and perpetrators of terroroism where it hurts, on their turf, without incurring massive losses and expense. Old-style wars, like the one we are fighting, kill innocents destroy expensive infrastructure and breed millions of hateful civilians. Small pinpoint operations that kill the right people do much less collateral damage. The enemy must believe we know where they are and will kill them when it suits our needs. This will give us bargaining chips so diplomacy can be effective. It will also give the American people confidence to fly, work and prosper. It's not an easy job but the cost of the war in Iraq could have been much better spent. After all these years we could be safer, and the world could be less dangerous if we were willing to adopt new tactics.

A defensive military action that becomes too expensive and non-productive leads to collapse. Look to the cold war and the Soviet Union.

A president with a limited intellect and creativity, the neoconservative ideals, and religous fanaticsm (Muslim, Christian or otherwise) will lead to us becoming more like them, than them becomig more like us. I for one don't want to live in a country like Iraq or Iran, and I don't want the US to become a place like that in the process of fighting the mis-named war on terror.

 

[Patrick]

Terrorists are a real threat and they must be met with deadly force since that is what they subject us to. They are filled with zealous hate but they fight smart.

We fight dumb. They are ruining our economy. We are headed toward militarism, facism and the loss of our freedoms (and therefore our country) as we ignorantly fight these people.

We must adopt an entirely new approach. It has to be intelligence based, multi-pronged, deadly, affordable and winnable. We must be vigilante that our country does not become a dictatorship in the process. The war in Iraq is an expensive waste of resources and lives, and they know it even if we don't.

We have beefed up our intelligence and security, that's good but not nearly enough has been done. Look at all the problems we have on practically a daily basis as our airline, conventon and tourist industries founder.

We need to be able to kill the leaders and perpetrators of terroroism where it hurts, on their turf, without incurring massive losses and expense. Old-style wars, like the one we are fighting, kill innocents destroy expensive infrastructure and breed millions of hateful civilians. Small pinpoint operations that kill the right people do much less collateral damage. The enemy must believe we know where they are and will kill them when it suits our needs. This will give us bargaining chips so diplomacy can be effective. It will also give the American people confidence to fly, work and prosper. It's not an easy job but the cost of the war in Iraq could have been much better spent. After all these years we could be safer, and the world could be less dangerous if we were willing to adopt new tactics.

A defensive military action that becomes too expensive and non-productive leads to collapse. Look to the cold war and the Soviet Union.

A president with a limited intellect and creativity, the neoconservative ideals, and religous fanaticsm (Muslim, Christian or otherwise) will lead to us becoming more like them, than them becomig more like us. I for one don't want to live in a country like Iraq or Iran, and I don't want the US to become a place like that in the process of fighting the mis-named war on terror.

Good ideas, but you are confusing the war on terror and the war in Iraq...they are two different things. The war on terror is like the war on drugs from the 1980s, it is not an isolated operation, but rather refers collectively to all actions taken by all countries against all terrorists anywhere on earth (with america being the chief user of the term "war on terror"). The war in Iraq is unrelated to terrorism, although there are "terrorists" in the country that are trying to tell us to LEAVE. Most people think Iraq is somehow tied in with terrorism, but its not. Unfortunately, it is that belief that allows a great majority (imo) of the little support this war does see.

your ideas are perfect for fighting terrorism, and i think that the military operations we staged in afghanistan actually came close to what you were suggesting (small scale stuff to take out the keystones of terror rings etc...)