>1) Your point is irrelevant because what another war, fought at another time, for other reasons may or may not have cost does not detract from what the author is claiming one could have better spent 1 trillion dollars (conservatively) on instead.

It would not have been otherwise spent. There would be a reduced deficit, that's all.

>2) Are you actually suggesting that Iraq is comparable to WWII in any way whatsoever?

Yes.


>
>>What a load of garbage that commentary is.
>>
>>WW2 in today's dollars cost us 4.7 trillion. Guess we should have saved 1/2 of it, stomped Japan with the other half and let the Europeans rot, eh?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/story?id=2844304&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312