More Expensive Than World War One

[ QUOTE ]
It is adjusted. The article states that everything is listed in 2005 dollars no less than 3 times.

[/ QUOTE ]

Devestating.

[ QUOTE ]
You just wanted it to be wrong.
************************************************** ******
LOL! True. I did NOT read the article. So many lies come from the left I felt very confident making the statement that I did. It turns out the kook left told the truth for once. In WWI we deployed a lot more troops than we did in Iraq and on the surface the assertion seemed ridiculous to me.

Oh well, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
Still this info doesn't change a thing. We are in Iraq to finish the mission and the bitching from the left won't change a thing.

Enjoy your shallow and meaningless victory. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I guess he sorta apologized?

Are all people left of him "kook[s]," I wonder? Is calling someone a kook for no reason (in fact the exact wrong reason) acceptable and/or reasonable? What does it do to elevate discourse?

Nietzsche or any of his conservative allies could feel free to answer...

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Man, Felix, what happened? Your posts used to be much better than this...

[/ QUOTE ]

We gotted censored [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

Mack

[Felix_Nietsche]

Lazy, I guess.

2,000,000 US Soldiers fought in WWI
113,000 US soldiers died in WWI
versus
150,000 US soldiers in Iraq
2,000 US soldier deaths

Since 2,000,000 is bigger than 150,000 I thought the original assertion was silly. I shot from the hip without bothering to read the article. I suppose the high tech nature of modern war makes it much more expensive. The kook left likes to cherry pick numbers which supports their anti-war arguments. The could not choose the 2,000,000 vs 150,000 numbers or 113,000 versus 2,000 numbers because that undermines their cause. So they choose money. My instincts were still right. They were being sneaky in making their arguments.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Lazy, I guess.

2,000,000 US Soldiers fought in WWI
113,000 US soldiers died in WWI
versus
150,000 US soldiers in Iraq
2,000 US soldier deaths


[/ QUOTE ]

I have........

Lazy, I guess.

4,355,000 US Soldiers fought in WWI
126,000 US soldiers died in WWI
versus

908,000 British soldiers killed 1.36 million French 1.7 million Russians, just numbers now, big frightening numbers, 8.5 million ordinary working men die in a war started and planned by public school boys and toffs.

Thanks Chaps

[Matty]

LOL! [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
Lazy, I guess.

2,000,000 US Soldiers fought in WWI
113,000 US soldiers died in WWI
versus
150,000 US soldiers in Iraq
2,000 US soldier deaths

Since 2,000,000 is bigger than 150,000 I thought the original assertion was silly. I shot from the hip without bothering to read the article. I suppose the high tech nature of modern war makes it much more expensive. The kook left likes to cherry pick numbers which supports their anti-war arguments. The could not choose the 2,000,000 vs 150,000 numbers or 113,000 versus 2,000 numbers because that undermines their cause. So they choose money. My instincts were still right. They were being sneaky in making their arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't sneaky, the post said that this war was more expensive than WWI. Which it was, despite your ridiculous inflation assumption (it would obviously be blown out of the water had inflation not been factored in). No one said "OMG LOOK THIS WAR WAS WORSE THAN WWI!" because that wasn't what the post was about. Perhaps the grander concept was that the war was not worth it, but you showing that more people died in WWI doesn't prove that it was, now, does it?

[TorpedoBreath]

I'm completely against this war but I don't believe this article shows it to be a financial outlier from a GDP relative standpoint. It sounds intriguing that it costs more than WWI but I think WWI is the outlier here compared to the other wars. Shouldn't we also be saying "OMG, Vietnam and Korea costs more than WWI!"

[ QUOTE ]
I'm completely against this war but I don't believe this article shows it to be a financial outlier from a GDP relative standpoint. It sounds intriguing that it costs more than WWI but I think WWI is the outlier here compared to the other wars. Shouldn't we also be saying "OMG, Vietnam and Korea costs more than WWI!"

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. If you don't like the war, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to argue without throwing this in, too. If (and I say if) the war really did contain a dictator that would have killed millions of Americans if he had the chance, then $850 per person would seem like a bargain. So the issue isn't the price tag as much as the reasons for war.

But keeping tabs on the price of war is important in the sense that we realize some of the price we all are paying.

[Felix_Nietsche]

4,355,000 US Soldiers fought in WWI
************************************************** *****
Like me, I think you are guilty of shooting from the hip.
2,000,000 US soldiers fought in FRANCE. There were 4,000,000+ US troops in uniform but not all of them "fought".

I think to make a fair comparison you must compare like figures. I am choosing to compare soldiers in combat zones. 150,000 US troops in a COMBAT ZONE (Iraq) vs 2,000,000 US soldiers in a COMBAT ZONE (France, the US did send a small force to Russia as well). As for the Iraq War, if you include support personel the figure will be higher than 150,000.


126,000 US soldiers died in WWI
************************************************** *
This site says 113,000 American dead.
http://www.nps.gov/elro/glossary/world-war-1.htm
My encyclopedia Britannica says 126,000. The 126,000 includes deaths caused by wounds so if a soldier died of an infection 4 months after being wounded then his death was included as a combat death. I suspect the differences in the figures are wounded who later died because of complications due to their wounds.