2008 Woodie Awards
Vote Absentee
A call to pitching arms
Feature Editorial
Joel Ebert
Issue date: 11/19/07 Section: Opinions
-
< prev
Page 2 of 2
You may scoff at this idea, but it's just as feasible as pouring billions of dollars into building a missile defense system and continually increasing government spending on the military.
In 2006 the Bush administration approved $19 billion towards missile defense plans by 2013. The astronomical costs that the administration has allocated towards the military and defense spending has been chided, questioned, and challenged by many throughout Bush's terms in office, but one thing remains to be done: stop the spending.
According to a new report by congressional Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee, the mismanaged Afghanistan and Iraq wars are estimated to cost $1.6 trillion. And this is an estimate of the costs from 2002 to 2008 - not even including the future costs of the war.
In fact, in the same report, the estimated cost of the war from 2003 till 2017 could be $3.5 trillion. I am skeptical of this number and would probably venture a guess and say it will be even higher, if not double that, if we "stay the course."
All the while oil prices still remain around $3 a gallon. Companies like Halliburton and Bechtel are enjoying hefty profits to the tune of billions from the Iraq War. Projects like the Caspian Guard (an intricate scheme that was devised in order to export Caspian oil without Iranian or Russian influence) and the new US embassy in Iraq (the largest embassy in the world, costing $592 million) have been added to the cost of the war. It seems as if we (and when I say "we," I do not include me or you, but the politicians in charge of these decisions) are setting up shop for quite a long time. And for what? Democracy? How about profits?
Projects like Caspian Guard suggest that the administration is setting itself up for one of two things, if not both: war with Iran, and/or a nice comfortable retirement plan. Sure Bush and the rest of his cronies may not be directly funded by these corporations, but you have to believe that they will not forget him once he is out of office.
The main thing that worries me is that the money that should go to the FAA to help combat bird strikes may be gone some day due to the excess financing of war.
And so the game continues. The war is funded. The troops are supported. The Democrats complain but never stop the spending.
Maybe I am listening to Mike Gravel and Ron Paul too much, or maybe I am a penny pincher. Either way, I hope that I'm not in the minority when I question this seemingly limitless government financing of the military and defense programs. I just think that the money could better serve our purposes through the services of former Major Leaguers in order to defeat the birds.
- < prev Page 2 of 2
In 2006 the Bush administration approved $19 billion towards missile defense plans by 2013. The astronomical costs that the administration has allocated towards the military and defense spending has been chided, questioned, and challenged by many throughout Bush's terms in office, but one thing remains to be done: stop the spending.
According to a new report by congressional Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee, the mismanaged Afghanistan and Iraq wars are estimated to cost $1.6 trillion. And this is an estimate of the costs from 2002 to 2008 - not even including the future costs of the war.
In fact, in the same report, the estimated cost of the war from 2003 till 2017 could be $3.5 trillion. I am skeptical of this number and would probably venture a guess and say it will be even higher, if not double that, if we "stay the course."
All the while oil prices still remain around $3 a gallon. Companies like Halliburton and Bechtel are enjoying hefty profits to the tune of billions from the Iraq War. Projects like the Caspian Guard (an intricate scheme that was devised in order to export Caspian oil without Iranian or Russian influence) and the new US embassy in Iraq (the largest embassy in the world, costing $592 million) have been added to the cost of the war. It seems as if we (and when I say "we," I do not include me or you, but the politicians in charge of these decisions) are setting up shop for quite a long time. And for what? Democracy? How about profits?
Projects like Caspian Guard suggest that the administration is setting itself up for one of two things, if not both: war with Iran, and/or a nice comfortable retirement plan. Sure Bush and the rest of his cronies may not be directly funded by these corporations, but you have to believe that they will not forget him once he is out of office.
The main thing that worries me is that the money that should go to the FAA to help combat bird strikes may be gone some day due to the excess financing of war.
And so the game continues. The war is funded. The troops are supported. The Democrats complain but never stop the spending.
Maybe I am listening to Mike Gravel and Ron Paul too much, or maybe I am a penny pincher. Either way, I hope that I'm not in the minority when I question this seemingly limitless government financing of the military and defense programs. I just think that the money could better serve our purposes through the services of former Major Leaguers in order to defeat the birds.
Be the first to comment on this story