War or Science?

[Demosthenes]

Hang on here. The war in Iraq is costing about $200 million per day (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/11/what_do_you_think_is_the_most.php), or a billion in less than a week. Yet George W Bush has just vetoed a bill (http://www.the-scientist.com/news/home/53858/) that would give NIH an additional $1 billion per year, raising the budget from $29 billion to $30 billion.

And what does he do? He accuses Congress of being on a "spending spree."

Here's hoping the guy chokes on the irony.

[!King_Amazon!]

What an asshat.

[Grav]

Afghanistan + Iraq wars have cost over $1.1 trillion so far. That was something like 450 million years of Harvard tuition.

[Vault Dweller]

I had this theory (which likely is entirely bullshit as I have no factual evidence and have designed a support system for it purely from conjecture) that if we really wanted to change the situation in Iraq, America could have redirected the absurd amount of money being funneled into military efforts into a hostile economic takeover, but on a national level. Rather than funding an unpopular (and rather unsuccessful) military venture, we could have funded some ruthless CEOs hellbent on erecting monuments to capitalism in a desert locale (complete with private security forces, because, who are we kidding, there is a violent extremist sector of the local population). Obviously, my idea would need to be fleshed out a bit, but with proper marketing, I think an asshole like Trump might just bite on it.