Ron Paul's Predictions from almost 11 Years Ago

[Duel of Fates]

The United States, with Tony Blair as head cheerleader, will attack Iraq without proper authority, and a major war, the largest since World War II, will result.

But I submit to you all, that we have been fighting a global war for a long time against Islamic extremists for quite some time now and by it's very definition could be considered a world war. Since it is being fought on many fronts, in many countries, by allies and enemies, saying it is not a world war is ridiculous.

It is refreshing to have a member of Congress tell it straight. Not catering to the party lines that most of these idiots on both sides of the aisle spew on a daily basis. I wish we had more like him in Congress, maybe the people would still have a voice in our government.

[Darth Crater]

.. It's smaller than Vietnam, and it could only be loosely called a "war" for the actual operations in Iraq. And he didn't even call it a "world war," I did - looking at the next line where he predicted the Asian powers would go for a wholesale land grab. Which hasn't happened.

Why does anyone think Ron Paul is a "populist" or "telling it straight" anyway? I know libertarians are the new flavor, but he's not even a libertarian, he just thinks the states should oppress you instead of the feds.

[Duel of Fates]

.. It's smaller than Vietnam, and it could only be loosely called a "war" for the actual operations in Iraq. And he didn't even call it a "world war," I did - looking at the next line where he predicted the Asian powers would go for a wholesale land grab. Which hasn't happened.

A Trillion Dollars for Wars Since 9/11
Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress has appropriated more than a trillion
dollars for military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere around the world. The House
and Senate are now considering an additional request for $33 billion in supplemental funding for
the remainder of FY2010, and the Administration has also requested $159 billion to cover costs of
overseas operations in FY2011. In the face of these substantial and growing sums, a recurring
question has been how the mounting costs of the nation’s current wars compare to the costs of
earlier conflicts.
The following table provides estimates of costs of major wars from the American Revolution
through conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf in 1990-1991. It also provides updated
estimates of costs of current operations. Estimates are in current year dollars that reflect values at
the time of each conflict and in constant dollars that reflect today’s prices. The table also shows
estimates of war costs as a share of the economy.
Table 1. Military Costs of Major U.S. Wars, 1775-2010
(Updated to include appropriations enacted and requested through FY2010)
Years of War Spending Peak Year of War Spending
Total Military Cost of War in
Millions/Billions of Dollars
War Cost %
GDP in Peak
Year of War
Total Defense %
GDP in Peak Year
of War
American Revolution 1775-1783
Current Year $ 101 million NA NA
Constant FY2011$ 2,407 million
War of 1812 1812-1815 1813
Current Year $ 90 million 2.2% 2.7%
Constant FY2011$ 1,553 million
Mexican War 1846-1849 1847
Current Year $ 71 million 1.4% 1.9%
Constant FY2011$ 2,376 million
Civil War: Union 1861-1865 1865
Current Year $ 3,183 million 11.3% 11.7%
Constant FY2011$ 59,631 million
Civil War: Confederacy 1861-1865
Current Year $ 1,000 million NA NA
Constant FY2011$ 20,111 million
Spanish American War 1898-1899 1899
Current Year $ 283 million 1.1% 1.5%
Constant FY2011$ 9,034 million
World War I 1917-1921 1919
Current Year $ 20 billion 13.6% 14.1%
Constant FY2011$ 334 billion
World War II 1941-1945 1945
Current Year $ 296 billion 35.8% 37.5%
Constant FY2011$ 4,104 billion
Korea 1950-1953 1952
Current Year $ 30 billion 4.2% 13.2%
Constant FY2011$ 341 billion
Vietnam 1965-1975 1968
Current Year $ 111 billion 2.3% 9.5%
Constant FY2011$ 738 billion
Persian Gulf Warb 1990-1991 1991
Current Year $ 61 billion 0.3% 4.6%
Constant FY2011$ 102 billion
Iraqa 2003-2010 2008
Current Year $ 715 billion 1.0% 4.3%
Constant FY2011$ 784 billion
Afghanistan/Otherac 2001-2010 2010
Current Year $ 297 billion 0.7% 4.9%
Constant FY2011$ 321 billion
Total Post-9/11—Iraq,
Afghanistan/Otherd 2001-2010 2008
Current Year $ 1,046 billion 1.2% 4.3%
Constant FY2011$ 1,147 billion
Oops, you got that wrong Crater.
Sources: All estimates are of the costs of military operations only and do not reflect costs of veterans’ benefits,
interest on war-related debt, or assistance to allies. Except for costs of the American Revolution and the Civil
War costs of the Confederacy, all estimates are based on U.S. government budget data. Current year dollar
estimates of the costs of the War of 1812 though World War II represent the increase in Army and Navy
outlays during the period of each war compared to average military spending in the previous three years. For the
Civil War costs of the Confederacy, the estimate is from the Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1994. For the
American Revolution, the estimate is from an unofficial financial history of the United States published in 1895.
For the Korean War, the estimate represents increased expenditures of the DOD during the period of the
conflict compared to the projected trend from the average of three years before the war to three years after.
For the Vietnam War and the Persian Gulf War, figures are DOD estimates of the incremental costs of
operations, meaning the costs of war-related activities over and above the regular, non-wartime costs of defense.
For operations since September 11, 2001, through FY2009, figures reflect CRS estimates of amounts
appropriated to cover war-related costs. For FY2010, figures are DOD estimates of war-related appropriations.
The current-year dollar estimates are converted to constant prices using estimates of changes in the consumer
price index for years prior to 1940 and using Office of Management and Budget and DOD estimates of defense

That is the money side. The following is a list of US casualties.


1775-1783 American Revolutionary War 25,000
1812-1815 War of 1812 ~20,000
1846-1848 Mexican-American War 13,283
1861-1865 Civil War ~625,000
1898 Spanish-America War 2,446
1917-1918 World War 1 116,516
1941-1945 World War 2 405,399
1950-1953 Korean War 36,516
1955-1975 Vietnam War 58,209
1990-1991 Persian Gulf War 258
2001- Afghanistan (ongoing) 2,145 (11/2012)
2003-2011 Iraq 4,486

Consideration must be given regarding upgrades in battlefield care for wounded personnel.
Tried to find stats or estimates on civilian casualties, but they are estimates and they vary widely depending on whether you wish to lean right, or left.

Why does anyone think Ron Paul is a "populist" or "telling it straight" anyway? I know libertarians are the new flavor, but he's not even a libertarian, he just thinks the states should oppress you instead of the feds.

That last sentence is the dumbest thing I have read on the internet in quite some time. If it came to it, I would choose local/state government control than federal government control.
1. State and local governments would be beholden to the State. Federal government is beholden to no one.
2. Problems can be addressed a lot sooner without Federal intervention.
3. Each state would be responsible for it's own books. I cannot stand that my tax money may be going to a state(say California) that pisses away their own tax dollars and then ask to be bailed out.
4. The Federal government has the habit of taking money fromt the States, then turning around and offering pennies on the dollar for education, welfare, highway systems, etc. and the States have to jump through hoops to get back what they put in.
5. The citizens of a State can get better representation on the local level than on a Federal level.

So yes Crater, if I had to choose an "opressor" it would be the State I choose to live in.

Oh, and this . . .

looking at the next line where he predicted the Asian powers would go for a wholesale land grab. Which hasn't happened.

Another American "green" company, propped up and backed by Obama, paid for by the tax payers to the tune of over $500,000,000.00 is now failing. China is looking to buy it. They don't need a land grab, they just need to buy our industries.

[Darth Crater]

Table 1. Military Costs of Major U.S. Wars, 1775-2010

Here's a link to the actual table. Alright, I'll grant that it had a current-dollar value greater than Vietnam. It only took around half as much of our GDP, though.

That is the money side. The following is a list of US casualties.
1941-1945 World War 2 405,399
...
1955-1975 Vietnam War 58,209
...
2001- Afghanistan (ongoing) 2,145 (11/2012)
2003-2011 Iraq 4,486

So, an order of magnitude less than Vietnam, and two orders of magnitude less than WWII. Looks pretty small to me.

That last sentence is the dumbest thing I have read on the internet in quite some time. If it came to it, I would choose local/state government control than federal government control.

If you would prefer that, go for it. I would appreciate you actually reading my posts for once before throwing insults, though. What I am saying is that unlimited control by the states is not a libertarian position - it's an antifederalist position.

Another American "green" company, propped up and backed by Obama, paid for by the tax payers to the tune of over $500,000,000.00 is now failing. China is looking to buy it. They don't need a land grab, they just need to buy our industries.

So, there was no Asian land grab. Glad to see we agree.

[Col. Hstar]

Award for longest most colorful post of the year goes to DoF

My thumb got cramp scrolling that one

[MATTHEW'S_DAD]

DOF has joined the rainbow coalition.

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

That last sentence is the dumbest thing I have read on the internet in quite some time. If it came to it, I would choose local/state government control than federal government control.
1. State and local governments would be beholden to the State. Federal government is beholden to no one.
2. Problems can be addressed a lot sooner without Federal intervention.
3. Each state would be responsible for it's own books. I cannot stand that my tax money may be going to a state(say California) that pisses away their own tax dollars and then ask to be bailed out.
4. The Federal government has the habit of taking money fromt the States, then turning around and offering pennies on the dollar for education, welfare, highway systems, etc. and the States have to jump through hoops to get back what they put in.
5. The citizens of a State can get better representation on the local level than on a Federal level.

So yes Crater, if I had to choose an "opressor" it would be the State I choose to live in.

The following numbers correspond to the points you made:
1. State and local governments are accountable to their citizens; the federal government, in turn, is accountable both to the states and to the citizens.
2. Certain disadvantaged states would have quite a bit more difficulty dealing with issues (like natural disasters) than larger states, and without federal aid, or "intervention" as you call it, inequality between the states grows, and the citizens of one state are much more depraved. (Ex. Florida and Alabama are hit by a massive hurricane that deals billions of dollars in damage - for simplicity's sake, let's say the damage is divided evenly between each state. Florida, with a GDP of 754,000,000 dollars and a much better coordinated relief program siphons money into the affected areas, saves lives, and repairs damages. Alabama, on the other hand, with a GDP of only 174,000,000,000 dollars and a not-so-responsive state government fails to provide adequate relief to its citizens. Is it fair then, that the citizens of one state are at a disadvantage to those in another state?)
3. Firstly, we are a Union, meaning that each state is accountable not only for itself, but also for the well-being of the entire country. If one state does badly, then other states will be affected as well. And again, let's say that Montana is in need of a new highway. Under your definition of a Utopia, it's taxpayers would have to pay for it (Montana is a relatively large state with a population of only 1.05 million. It's taxpayers can't afford to foot the bill. An equally large state, California, has the tax base to pay for its own highway. Would you like to explain to the citizens of Montana why they don't deserve Federal money for a much-needed highway?
4. Again, we are a Union. The Federal Government does not take money from the states; it takes money from the citizens of each state, who are accountable to the Union first and foremost. Not to mention that S. Carolina produces about a tenth of what it gets from the federal government, meaning that small states benefit from the federal governments redistribution of wealth.
5. Maybe so. But some degree of standardization is required. Take education. One state holds its students accountable to a lower material level, and when a student moves to another state, he is unprepared for what they ask of him (Mississippi kid who moves to New Jersey or New York). Or take marriage equality. One state decides to legalize it, and gay couples enjoy their rights, but another state refuses to recognize that marriage - the couple is discouraged from moving to that state, as their rights are not recognized there. If the Federal Government were to recognize all marriages at that level, and all states held accountable to that basic human right, the problem of regional difference is irrelevant.

[WD-40]

BEEUURRRRRPPPP!....sorry