Where is the Profit

[Lost_Child]

Seems to me if your going to shell out $17 Billion Dollars
that it should produce a profit !
What could $17 Billion do here in the US ?

National News from The Associated Press

Iraq and Afghan Wars Force Army Equipment Expenses to More Than Triple to Over $17 Billion


WASHINGTON -- The annual cost of replacing, repairing and upgrading Army equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan is expected to more than triple next year to more than $17 billion, according to Army documents obtained by the Associated Press.

From 2002 to 2006, the Army spent an average of $4 billion a year in annual equipment costs. But as the war takes a harder toll on the military, that number is projected to balloon to more than $12 billion for the federal budget year that starts next Oct. 1, the documents show.

The $17 billion also includes an additional $5 billion in equipment expenses that the Army requested in previous years but has not yet been provided.

The latest costs include the transfer of more than 1,200 2 1/2-ton trucks, nearly 1,100 Humvees and $8.8 million in other equipment from the U.S. Army to the Iraqi security forces.

Army and Marine Corps leaders are expected to testify before Congress Tuesday and outline the growing costs of the war _ with estimates that it will cost between $12 billion and $13 billion a year for equipment repairs, upgrades and replacements from now on.

The Marine Corps has said in recent testimony before Congress that it would need nearly $12 billion to replace and repair all the equipment worn out or lost to combat in the past four years. So far, the Marines have received $1.6 billion toward those costs to replace and repair the equipment.

According to the Army, the $17 billion includes:

_$2.1 billion in equipment that must be replaced because of battle losses.

_About $6.5 billion for repairs.

_About $8.4 billion to rebuild or upgrade equipment.

One of the growing costs is the replacement of Humvees, which are wearing out more quickly because of the added armor they are carrying to protect soldiers from roadside bombs. The added weight is causing them to wear out faster, decreasing the life of the vehicles.

Congress has provided about $21 billion for equipment costs in emergency supplemental budget bills from 2002-06. All the war equipment expenses have been funded through those emergency bills, and not in the regular fiscal-year budgets.

Pentagon officials have estimated that such emergency bills would have to continue two years beyond the time the U.S. pulls out of Iraq in order to fully replace, repair and rebuild all of the needed equipment.

The push for additional equipment funding comes after the House last week passed a $427 billion defense spending bill for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, which includes $50 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. A separate $66 billion emergency funding bill for the two wars was approved earlier in the month.

War-related costs since 2001 are approaching half a trillion dollars.

___

On the Net:

Defense Department: www.defenselink.mil


Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

hamptonroads.cox.net/cci/newsnational/national?_mode=view&_state=maximized&view=article&id=D8IGAA8O0

[Lamron]

$17 Billion sure is alot of money. That works out to $56 million for every person in the U.S. Where does all that money come from? It's obviously not tax revenue.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have spent it, but I think its time for some of the countries that benefit from it to start paying us back with whatever natural resources they have. We don't need to actually make a profit, otherwise everyone will say we "did it all for the oil". We should just get reimbursed for our monetary expenses, and that's it. And once their debt to us is paid off, the infrastructure built to extract these resources can continue working for them by creating revenue by selling it to whoever they want.

================================================

Another way to look at this is expenditure is to note that much of that money went to creating American jobs in research/manufacturing. We're spending the money, but alot of it ends up back in circulation in America.

Taking the LONG view, helping raise the overall standards of living and pay around the world benefits us in two ways; first, there must be someone in the world that can afford to buy American products or there is no export market for us. So we're creating potential consumers. Second, as the difference in payscale between the U.S. and other countries diminishes, out-sourcing becomes less attractive for American companies, keeping jobs here at home.

Freeing Iraq and Afghanistan from oppression, and eliminating staging grounds for terrorism are the short-term goals. Spreading the idea of freedom and capitalism are the long term goals. Prosperous, free countries that are involved in mutually beneficial trade with their neighbors don't go out causing trouble. Capitalism IS the solution to finding peace; if everyone's making money, no one wants to rock the boat. And if someone is causing trouble, the neighbors are quick to put the smack down on that before it interferes with free trade.

[desmo2]

There is also the benefit of real combat experience for our troops and equipment. You can design and build the highest-tech stuff in the world, but until you test it in real-world combat, it just isn't proven and critical design or training flaws can become evident. Yes, it is insanely expensive, but our troops over their are gaining invaluable experience and our equipment is getting invaluable combat tests. We will continue to have the best equipped, best trained, most formidable military in the world.

[BAT*21{usa}]

military operations - 50 billion dollars,,, equipment cost- 21 billion dollars,,,total cost 1 trillion dollars,, freedom in this or any other country that desires it,,,PRICELESS