The $2 Trillion Nightmare
Trillion is a word you use to describe something so great that the word billion just doesn't cut it:
"This fabulous bag cost me a trillion dollars and a half."
"Yo, there were trillions of people at that party, it was off the hook!"
"How much do you think the ozone layer is worth, a trillion dollars?"
It is not, however, a word that should ever be used to describe the national debt, or how much the war is costing American taxpayers. EVER. But that's what it's come down to. The cost of this war is bordering on $3 trillion (!!!). Trillion! Can you even wrap your mind around that?? And with these kinds of figures and facts swimming around, I just can't take seriously anyone who genuinely believes that pulling our troops from Iraq is not the thing to do. There is no simple solution to any of this. But the fact of the matter is, the quality of American life is being sacrificed because of a war we shouldn't have been involved in in the first place. It's a price we're going to be paying for a very, very long time. Like a trillion years-long.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
In hindsight, the war is a disastrous expense. Looking forward though, the incremental cost of the war v. the potential cost of pulling out too quickly is less clear and definitely debatable.
Everyone thought the Civil War would be over in months. But it dragged on for years and cost half a million American lives. Looking in 1863, should Lincoln have let the South go in 1863?
Same could be discussed for Korea in 1950. Vietnam in the 60s. Germany first v. Japan first in WWII. And so on.
Not the same situations of course, but there are parallels and using $$$ as the sole "no brainer" factor isn't how policy should work.
It is almost a tragedy that the $3 trillion couldn't be used for something else, but then again, if trillions were spent on the Cold War, what kind of world would might we be in now.
You might be right. I'm just saying that it isn't so obvious and based on what happens when the US pulls out too quickly, a gradual withdrawal with permanent bases seems to be the smartest thing to do long-term.
you know, anonymous has a point. studying this war back in college when it first began, the face of it now is so different than it was three years ago. while i am a firm believer that we should pull out of the war, i believe that pulling out gradually is the best way to go - if ONLY we could begin to pull out gradually, as Bush promised us years ago. *sigh*
I'm definitely a proponent for pulling troops out gradually. There's no doubt that immediately withdrawing our troops will leave Iraq unstable and a mess far bigger than the mess we've created by being there. But, as Vicki points out, we should have long ago had plans set in motion to start pulling out of the war, which we currently do not have.
My point is, how long can we afford to stay in Iraq with these mounting costs, especially when our social benefits and opportunities are being sacrificed on behalf of it (Social Security, Medicare, countless of other federal programs)? We need a plan to gradually pull out, and an administration that is willing to face the problem and deal with it, instead of hiding from it as the Bush administration has done. November can't come soon enough.
That word scares me. We def. Should pull out our troops.. I hate bush for being such a girl. The weird thing is a lot of the troops that are actually there want to be there or stay. I mean a lot. Good post jenn
Yeah. To all of a sudden pull out the troops would just make the past years there a bit disastrous. At this rate. baby steps is the key, rather than planning to stay there for "100 years" or just leaving them hanging.
Post a Comment