What the Iraq War Could Have Bought Instead (7 pics)

Posted in PICTURES       24 Oct 2011       12231       14 GALLERY VIEW

Instead of spending $2 trillion invading Iraq and staying there for over eight years the United States could have done much more with that money. See the kinds of positive impact that money could have made instead.

 


Credits:  www.buzzfeed.com


14   Comments ?
2
1.
Albane 9 year s ago
Weird. From what I have seen, US Spends 2 trillion dollars on healthcare every year. Because of this, I will assume every other statistic is made up as well.
       
1
2.
AndyOfBeaverton 9 year s ago
Spot on! All of this post is BS.

1. Heath care on the US is ~17% of GDP. $14.2 trillion x 17% = $2.4 trillion.

2. Direct military cost in Iraq from 2001-2011 is $757.8 billion

One of the posters is about making everyone literate. Besides not being possible, the creator of these posters is illiterate.
       
0
3.
Enter your name 9 year s ago
abbsolutelly hip this post!
       
2
4.
einsib 9 year s ago
yeah go for bacon
       
3
5.
Sizomu 9 year s ago
NO, they couldn't, because the Money is lent into existence. The problem is the fact that we still borrow money from a private bank, which just makes money out of thin air. so this post is point less....
       
5
6.
AnnaMolly 9 year s ago
Fuck the stats or whatev, the war is still a fucking expensive waste of time and life.
       
1
7.
AndyOfBeaverton 9 year s ago
War has never solved anything
except for creating the United States
and for ending
slavery,
Genocide,
Fascism,
Nazism
and a few other 'unpleasant' institutions and regimes
       
0
8.
Sigh 9 year s ago
Good god what an idiotic pile of ignorant crap. Eliminate hunger? Didn't people learn anything from Live Aid? I wish stupidity hurt.
       
2
9.
Trooper 9 year s ago
I agree.... The US alone has spent 10's of Trillions of dollars since Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" in the late '60s and has only had an impact of just a percentage point or 2 on the poverty rate. Sometimes (actually alot of the time) the answer is not just throwing large wads of cash at problems, unless of course you are a socialist or Democrat.
       
1
10.
speedydaytona 9 year s ago
Throwing cash at a problems always ends with people skimming upwards of 75% off the top.

All that food sent to Africa and the people it was intended for might have got 10%
       
2
11.
LeCardinal 9 year s ago
bullshit stats ,!
if you sent money to affrica to end poverty, they reproduce like locust and 10 years later you have a new problem of famine with double the population to feed

sending money to africa will not resolve any problem.
they need to change their society .
Limit chidrens to 3 by family
       
0
12.
orendadude 9 year s ago
MMMMMMMM...Bacon
       
0
13.
Arch 9 year s ago
Forget about the stats, if the numbers are exact or anything. Point is this money could have been used for something moral instead of making war.
       
0
14.
4down2 9 year s ago
How about making plans for living quarters on the moon ?
       
27353641acute
belayclappingdance3dashdirol
drinksfoolgirl_craygirl_devilgirl_witch
goodgreenheartJC-LOLJC_doubledown
JC_OMG_signkisslaughingman_in_lmocking
mr47_04musicokroflsarcastic
sm_80tonguevishenka_33vomitwassat
yahooshoot
Advertisement

Archives

2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
0000
Advertisement

How to comment

•    Don't insult other visitors. Offensive comments will be deleted without warning.

•    Comments are accepted in English only.

•    No swearing words in comments, otherwise such comments will be censored.

•    Your nickname and avatar are randomly selected. If you don't post comments for 7 days, they both are reset.

•    To choose another avatar, click the ‘Random avatar’ link.