Thursday, May 24, 2007

456 Billion

Our good friends at Crooks & Liars aim us at an article in Editor & Publisher which recounts a piece on the Boston Globe website, that asks how the estimated 456 billion spent on Iraq might have been better used.

The population of Iraq, pre-war, was about 19.9 million people. If George the lesser had really wanted to make things better in that troubled land, he could have written a cheque in the amount of $22,914.00 for every man, woman and child in that country. He could have insisted that in order to get the dough, that they renounce terrorism and oust Saddam in favour of a democratic government. If my reading of the human condition isn't too far off, we'd have a very grateful parliamentary ally in the region.

Then again, I'm just a crazy, hateful anti-war leftie.

12 comments:

The Seer said...

Enough of the anti-Bush propaganda. Is professinoal hockey coming to Waterloo?

The Seer said...

Besides, you're not doing justice to TheCommander Guy's generosity. CNN says he US Air Force is hustling ammo to Lebanon to keep the shelling on the Palestinian camp going, the Lebanese army having completely shot its wad.

Maybe you Canadians can send food and medicine and stuff like that.

spdyrbc said...

Because, as we all know, the Iraqis could have overthrown Hussein whenver they wished, they just didn't have enough incentive to do so.

And this crap passes for deep thought in moonbatdom?

Kyle Lahnakoski said...

If the numbers are right, (http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0124-un.html), 1.8billion is needed by the WFP to provide food assistance to Africa for a year. Assuming a higher figure of 2.55billion (see bottom of article), then the Iraq war could have provided food to Africa for 178 years.

rabbit said...

If you want to stop totalitarianism, it's probably a bad idea to reward it with money.

Cause 50 other countries will want their payout as well. Hell, Canada would turn totalitarian so we could get our turn at the trough.

pretty shaved ape said...

dear spdyrbc troll,
thanks for your attempt at a stinging rejoinder. the management has noted your rudimentary grasp of sarcasm and promises to afford you a chuckle at some point in the future. well, actually we'll just laugh at you.

what you fail to grasp is that this is not a serious proposal. this is what our friend and ally tony blair might refer to as taking the piss. which seems appropriate in the light of america's noble efforts to piss hundreds of billions in bblood and treasure into the sand.

where your critique fails most dismally is that, indeed it was not only possible but inevitable that saddam would be overthrown. if you'd care to look into the history books you might have noticed that in the wake of gulf war no. 1, the first bush regime encouraged revolt and had promised material support. ghw bush then reneged, the aftermath was the slaughter of the rebels.

when it comes to thoughts deep, i am sure all eyes will turn to you. thanks for playing. you may now return to suckling at kate's teat. wanker.

spydrbc said...

monkey,

Surely that feeble rejoinder cannot be the best you can do, despite the length of time it took to compose it?

Dictators are overthrown by their people, without outside help, only when they become weak, not when they are at the height of their power. Perhaps you should buy some real books.

Who the fuck is "Kate"?

pretty shaved ape said...

length of time? i worked a full day at my job between posting and responding to your tripe. one can hardly imagine that saddam was at the height of his power in the wake of gulf war one. he'd been trounced in a matter of weeks by the americans and their coalition. as for the when and where of over throw, look at the history of iraq in the 20th century, it's a series of coups and overthrown regimes.

as far as popular revolt, there was no better or more likely moment that in the months following that war. saddam was the strongman dictator. in the eyes of his people he had been defeated, his plans in the region thwarted. the americans promised to support a popular movement against him and then abandoned those folks. they paid for america's duplicity with their lives.

spydrbc said...

And without outside help, in this case from the Americans, the Iraqis were unable to overthrow Hussein. Which, if you were paying attention, was my point from the beginning.

Ti-Guy said...

That was your point? I thought your point was to be a miserable bastard and a condescending scold.

My mistake. Although, in my defense, being miserable and condescending seems to be the only point of very many people these days, especially the followers of KKKate, who has uppity ignorance the way some people have bad breath.

pretty shaved ape said...

oh for crying out loud. spudbrick, you had no point. iraq's political history has more than a few examples of entirely self-generated regime change. if you have an argument beyond nyah-nyah, make it push off.

M@ said...

Um, I think that the entire discussion forgets the most important aspect of the war budget: without that $450Bn, Halliburton's stock might not have risen at all.

Oh, and the terrorists would already have won. Goes without saying.