Talk:Financial cost of the Iraq War
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I believe that this article should be merged into the main article Iraq War. Does it really merit having its own entry? Cyrus Andiron 19:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- The Iraq War article is long as it is. Iraq War links to this section, so in a way, it is already part of the main article. For very long sections in very long articles, making that section its own entry makes sense to make the main article easier to overview and read. DanielDemaret 05:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Direct cost
This article seems only to be "direct costs", or expenditures of the main invading countries.
The costs to Iraq and the indirect costs to other countries have been huge, and should either be mentioned, or else the title should be adapted accordingly. DanielDemaret 05:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Misleading figures
Some of these figures are misleading as they include things such as Tsunami Relief and operations in Afghanistan, which are unlreated to the costs incurred from the conflict in Iraq Trypsin24 19:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
== DISPUTED ARTICLE; Erroneous topic heading and misleading information in not only the article but in many of the sources; The topic states it is about the cost of the IRAQ WAR, yet in the majority or most references and in the article itself, are included fundings and costs that include the Afghanistan Campaign, which started in Oct 2001 as part of the Global War On Terror(GWOT). The article heading should be changed or transfered to the GWOT as it is misleading, in error and has expressed references of bias and some disputable distortions. ustrader 15:16, 21,May 2007
Actually, the main source for this article has been pretty specific in addressing the difference between the cost of the Iraq war and the cost of the Afghanistan war. As you'll note in the list of fiscal year expenditures, the two costs have separate figures. Publicus 15:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hidden Costs of Iraq and/or Afghanistan War
Worth noting.
'Hidden costs raise' US war price
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7092053.stm
The US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are costing nearly double the amount previously thought, according to a report by Democrats in the US Congress. They say "hidden costs" have pushed the total to about $1.5 trillion - nearly twice the requested $804bn (£402bn). Higher oil prices, treating wounded veterans, and the cost to the economy of pulling reservists away from their jobs have been taken into account.
User:gelato 02:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Stiglitz' figures
He's now claiming $3 trillion, as per BBC Radio Four interview on February 25th 2008Jatrius (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] screw the metaphorical analogies: where's the straight out budget allocation
I do not really get the whole "oh it will provide X a day for a family of Y" analogies when there's NOTHING on what the official allocation in the national budget is, which as I recall, the War only accounts for 25% of the previous deficit before this new year's budget (in which things were shaken up a bit). John Riemann Soong (talk) 10:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)