Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Cost of War
I can think of better ways of spending my share of the $2 trillion
dollars. How about your share? TMT Cost of Iraq war could top $2 trillion: study By Jason Szep The cost of the Iraq war could top $2 trillion, far above the White House's pre-war projections, when long-term costs such as lifetime health care for thousands of wounded U.S. soldiers are included, a study said on Monday. Columbia University economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard lecturer Linda Bilmes included in their study disability payments for the 16,000 wounded U.S. soldiers, about 20 percent of whom suffer serious brain or spinal injuries. They said U.S. taxpayers will be burdened with costs that linger long after U.S. troops withdraw. "Even taking a conservative approach, we have been surprised at how large they are," said the study, referring to total war costs. "We can state, with some degree of confidence, that they exceed a trillion dollars." Before the invasion, then-White House budget director Mitch Daniels predicted Iraq would be "an affordable endeavor" and rejected an estimate by then-White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey of total Iraq war costs at $100 billion to $200 billion as "very, very high." Unforeseen costs include recruiting to replenish a military drained by multiple tours of duty, slower long-term U.S. economic growth and health-care bills for treating long-term mental illness suffered by war veterans. They said about 30 percent of U.S. troops had developed mental-health problems within three to four months of returning from Iraq as of July 2005, citing Army statistics. Stiglitz, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001 and has been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, and Bilmes based their projections partly on past wars and included the economic cost of higher oil prices, a bigger U.S. budget deficit and greater global insecurity caused by the Iraq war. They said a portion of the rise in oil prices -- about 20 percent of the $25 a barrel gain in oil prices since the war began -- could be attributed directly to the conflict and that this had already cost the United States about $25 billion. "Americans are, in a sense, poorer by that amount," they said, describing that estimate as conservative. The projection of a total cost of $2 trillion assumes U.S. troops stay in Iraq until 2010 but with steadily declining numbers each year. They projected the number of troops there in 2006 at about 136,000. Currently, the United States has 153,000 troops in Iraq. HIGHER COSTS Marine Corps Lt. Col. Roseann Lynch, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said on Monday that the Iraq war was costing the United States $4.5 billion monthly in military "operating costs" not including procurement of new weapons and equipment. Lynch said the war in Iraq had cost $173 billion to date. Another unforeseen cost, the study said, is the loss to the U.S. economy from injured veterans who cannot contribute as productively as they otherwise would and costs related to American civilian contractors and journalists killed in Iraq. Death benefits to military families and bonuses paid to soldiers to re-enlist and to sign up new recruits are additional long-term costs, it said. Stiglitz was an adviser to U.S. President Bill Clinton and also served as chief economist at the World Bank. (Additional reporting by Charles Aldinger in Washington) |
#2
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Cost of War
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote "Even taking a conservative approach, we have been surprised at how large they are," said the study, referring to total war costs. "We can state, with some degree of confidence, that they exceed a trillion dollars." Let's see: 25 million Iraquis. Spending $4 on each one equals $100 million. Spending $40 gets you to $1 billion. So, $1 trillion is $40,000 per "liberated" Iraqui. Who says freedom is priceless? -- TP |
#3
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Cost of War
"tonyp" wrote in message
... "Too_Many_Tools" wrote "Even taking a conservative approach, we have been surprised at how large they are," said the study, referring to total war costs. "We can state, with some degree of confidence, that they exceed a trillion dollars." Let's see: 25 million Iraquis. Spending $4 on each one equals $100 million. Spending $40 gets you to $1 billion. So, $1 trillion is $40,000 per "liberated" Iraqui. Who says freedom is priceless? Well, you could look at it the other way around. Using Bush's figure of 30,000 dead, that means it cost us over $30 million to kill each one. There has to be a more productive way to do it. -- Ed Huntress |
#4
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Cost of War
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 22:33:04 -0500, the renowned "tonyp"
wrote: "Too_Many_Tools" wrote "Even taking a conservative approach, we have been surprised at how large they are," said the study, referring to total war costs. "We can state, with some degree of confidence, that they exceed a trillion dollars." Let's see: 25 million Iraquis. Spending $4 on each one equals $100 million. Spending $40 gets you to $1 billion. So, $1 trillion is $40,000 per "liberated" Iraqui. Who says freedom is priceless? -- TP What does that work out to per gallon? Best regards, Spehro Pefhany -- "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com |
#5
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Cost of War
"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message ... On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 22:33:04 -0500, the renowned "tonyp" wrote: "Too_Many_Tools" wrote "Even taking a conservative approach, we have been surprised at how large they are," said the study, referring to total war costs. "We can state, with some degree of confidence, that they exceed a trillion dollars." Let's see: 25 million Iraquis. Spending $4 on each one equals $100 million. Spending $40 gets you to $1 billion. So, $1 trillion is $40,000 per "liberated" Iraqui. Who says freedom is priceless? -- TP What does that work out to per gallon? How many dead Americans does it work out to? We're all hearing the number of Americans killed in the Iraq war is somewhere around 2,200 right now. Now, I can't confirm this, but I have heard that number is basically faked to make it seem like the losses are far less than they really are. What I have heard is that the way the military counts war dead is by only counting those actually killed on the ground in Iraq as part of the 2,200. Supposedly, if four soldiers are hit by an IED and one is dead on the spot and the other three are still alive and are taken away in choppers but die somewhere else they are not counted as killed in Iraq. Like I said, I don't know if this is true or not but from what I have heard the real number of American troops killed in closer to 10,000. It wouldn't surprise me if this is true. Can anyone confirm if this is true? Hawke |
#6
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Cost of War
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
I can think of better ways of spending my share of the $2 trillion dollars. How about your share? TMT Cost of Iraq war could top $2 trillion: study By Jason Szep The cost of the Iraq war could top $2 trillion, far above the White House's pre-war projections, when long-term costs such as lifetime health care for thousands of wounded U.S. soldiers are included, a study said on Monday. Yeah, these are the costs of war that a guy who's never seen it close up just can't comprehend. Columbia University economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard lecturer Linda Bilmes included in their study disability payments for the 16,000 wounded U.S. soldiers, about 20 percent of whom suffer serious brain or spinal injuries. They said U.S. taxpayers will be burdened with costs that linger long after U.S. troops withdraw. Yup, we'll be paying for this one for the next 50 years, on several "fronts". Veteran's disability and treatment, lost productivity of guys who won't come back to their jobs, and the economic costs. When you add all this up, $2 trillion is so low as to be laughably far off. Just the veterans treatment could rack up $2 trillion over those 50 years. If these guys had stayed stateside in the armed forces, they'd still need treatment as veterans, but it wouldn't be the catastrophic costs of the seriously wounded vet, just the normal wear and tear of aging people. "Even taking a conservative approach, we have been surprised at how large they are," said the study, referring to total war costs. "We can state, with some degree of confidence, that they exceed a trillion dollars." Before the invasion, then-White House budget director Mitch Daniels predicted Iraq would be "an affordable endeavor" and rejected an estimate by then-White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey of total Iraq war costs at $100 billion to $200 billion as "very, very high." These are the most direct, short-term costs, only. The projection of a total cost of $2 trillion assumes U.S. troops stay in Iraq until 2010 but with steadily declining numbers each year. They projected the number of troops there in 2006 at about 136,000. Currently, the United States has 153,000 troops in Iraq. Well, reading the news, any estimates based on late last year's attrition rates start looking very low, compared to what's been going on the last couple of weeks. It is not looking good at ALL! Both the deaths of US forces and the deaths of civilians in Iraq is taking a REALLY OMINOUS trend! Jon |
#7
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Cost of War
Hawke wrote:
"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message ... On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 22:33:04 -0500, the renowned "tonyp" wrote: "Too_Many_Tools" wrote "Even taking a conservative approach, we have been surprised at how large they are," said the study, referring to total war costs. "We can state, with some degree of confidence, that they exceed a trillion dollars." Let's see: 25 million Iraquis. Spending $4 on each one equals $100 million. Spending $40 gets you to $1 billion. So, $1 trillion is $40,000 per "liberated" Iraqui. Who says freedom is priceless? -- TP What does that work out to per gallon? How many dead Americans does it work out to? We're all hearing the number of Americans killed in the Iraq war is somewhere around 2,200 right now. Now, I can't confirm this, but I have heard that number is basically faked to make it seem like the losses are far less than they really are. What I have heard is that the way the military counts war dead is by only counting those actually killed on the ground in Iraq as part of the 2,200. No, it is EVEN WORSE! If you catch an enemy bullet, or get blown up by an IED, they have to count you as a war casualty. But, if your Bradley or Humvee goes off a bridge avoiding a possible IED, that is NOT counted as a combat casualty, but as an "accident"! If your truck blows a tire while you are dodging an RPG attack, and rolls over and kills you, they count it as a "vehicle accident". Supposedly, if four soldiers are hit by an IED and one is dead on the spot and the other three are still alive and are taken away in choppers but die somewhere else they are not counted as killed in Iraq. Like I said, I don't know if this is true or not but from what I have heard the real number of American troops killed in closer to 10,000. This particular scenario probably would be counted as a combat casualty, if the wounds are from the enemy action. But, there are so many things that go wrong and get people killed. For instance, friendy fire accidents are not chalked up to combat unless they get a lot of press. Yes, the total US dead is at or over 10,000 now. There's a web site that had amassed some data on the "non-combat" deaths and injuries, but I can't find it now. It was quite a shock to me to see how the administration is covering this up. In Vietnam, we faked the enemy "body count". Now, we are faking OUR OWN "body count"! Incredible, disgusting, maybe a new kind of war crime, to not let us know what the real cost of this war is! Jon |
#8
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Cost of War
There is a more productive way to do it, but "Green Sand" isn't worth much
on the e-bay site now-a-day. Naturally, the easy way - is much more expensive. Millions of free Iraqees would die. Since most of them there have nothing to do with the problem - and most of the bad ones are from foreign countries now or trained by foreigns. Martin Martin Eastburn @ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net NRA LOH & Endowment Member NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder Ed Huntress wrote: "tonyp" wrote in message ... "Too_Many_Tools" wrote "Even taking a conservative approach, we have been surprised at how large they are," said the study, referring to total war costs. "We can state, with some degree of confidence, that they exceed a trillion dollars." Let's see: 25 million Iraquis. Spending $4 on each one equals $100 million. Spending $40 gets you to $1 billion. So, $1 trillion is $40,000 per "liberated" Iraqui. Who says freedom is priceless? Well, you could look at it the other way around. Using Bush's figure of 30,000 dead, that means it cost us over $30 million to kill each one. There has to be a more productive way to do it. -- Ed Huntress ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#9
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Cost of War
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 22:40:17 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: "tonyp" wrote in message ... "Too_Many_Tools" wrote "Even taking a conservative approach, we have been surprised at how large they are," said the study, referring to total war costs. "We can state, with some degree of confidence, that they exceed a trillion dollars." Let's see: 25 million Iraquis. Spending $4 on each one equals $100 million. Spending $40 gets you to $1 billion. So, $1 trillion is $40,000 per "liberated" Iraqui. Who says freedom is priceless? Well, you could look at it the other way around. Using Bush's figure of 30,000 dead, that means it cost us over $30 million to kill each one. There has to be a more productive way to do it. =========================== Part of the cost of a gallon of gasoline that does not show up at the pump. There are many more. Be sure to factor these hidden costs in when evaluation ethenol/biodiesel production from domestic feedstocks. Uncle George |
#10
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Cost of War
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 22:33:04 -0500, "tonyp"
wrote: "Too_Many_Tools" wrote "Even taking a conservative approach, we have been surprised at how large they are," said the study, referring to total war costs. "We can state, with some degree of confidence, that they exceed a trillion dollars." Let's see: 25 million Iraquis. Spending $4 on each one equals $100 million. Spending $40 gets you to $1 billion. So, $1 trillion is $40,000 per "liberated" Iraqui. Who says freedom is priceless? -- TP How much did we pay the Katrina "survivors" so far? It may be cheaper to simpy pay the Iraqis to take the Katrina "poor" Gunner The aim of untold millions is to be free to do exactly as they choose and for someone else to pay when things go wrong. In the past few decades, a peculiar and distinctive psychology has emerged in England. Gone are the civility, sturdy independence, and admirable stoicism that carried the English through the war years .. It has been replaced by a constant whine of excuses, complaints, and special pleading. The collapse of the British character has been as swift and complete as the collapse of British power. Theodore Dalrymple, |
#11
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Cost of War
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 22:43:04 -0600, Jon Elson
wrote: actually killed on the ground in Iraq as part of the 2,200. No, it is EVEN WORSE! If you catch an enemy bullet, or get blown up by an IED, they have to count you as a war casualty. But, if your Bradley or Humvee goes off a bridge avoiding a possible IED, that is NOT counted as a combat casualty, but as an "accident"! If your truck blows a tire while you are dodging an RPG attack, and rolls over and kills you, they count it as a "vehicle accident". Ah..Jon...the total death count to date..also includes those who drowned, were killed in vehicle rollovers and so forth. They are not all combat casualties. In fact..only about 2/3- are combat deaths. Gunner The aim of untold millions is to be free to do exactly as they choose and for someone else to pay when things go wrong. In the past few decades, a peculiar and distinctive psychology has emerged in England. Gone are the civility, sturdy independence, and admirable stoicism that carried the English through the war years .. It has been replaced by a constant whine of excuses, complaints, and special pleading. The collapse of the British character has been as swift and complete as the collapse of British power. Theodore Dalrymple, |
#12
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Cost of War
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 22:43:04 -0600, Jon Elson
wrote: Yes, the total US dead is at or over 10,000 now. There's a web site that had amassed some data on the "non-combat" deaths and injuries, but I can't find it now. It was quite a shock to me to see how the administration is covering this up. In Vietnam, we faked the enemy "body count". Now, we are faking OUR OWN "body count"! Incredible, disgusting, maybe a new kind of war crime, to not let us know what the real cost of this war is! Jon I have a website that gives Elvis's post office box. Send a letter to him and he will reply. Sniff some triclor earlier today by accident??? Gunner The aim of untold millions is to be free to do exactly as they choose and for someone else to pay when things go wrong. In the past few decades, a peculiar and distinctive psychology has emerged in England. Gone are the civility, sturdy independence, and admirable stoicism that carried the English through the war years .. It has been replaced by a constant whine of excuses, complaints, and special pleading. The collapse of the British character has been as swift and complete as the collapse of British power. Theodore Dalrymple, |
#13
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Cost of War
"Gunner" wrote in message ... On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 22:33:04 -0500, "tonyp" How much did we pay the Katrina "survivors" so far? It may be cheaper to simpy pay the Iraqis to take the Katrina "poor" Gunner My latest argument has been for "Slave Reparation". I argue that all African descendants SHOULD receive the $20,000 amount targeted. The cash must be taxed as income. It would be the most wonderful thing to ever happen to the economy! Every dollar pumped into each local economy circulates seven times and is taxed each time. I think it would be a net gain for the treasury and it would mark the end of racism, welfare, ADC, foodstamps, section 8 housing, and a billion other gov. programs. Mortgage the farm and buy stock in the companies that will suck-up this windfall. It's not just a black thing, if you put this cash into any demographic like "people with brown eyes", it would have the same effect. |
#14
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Cost of War
Gunner wrote: How much did we pay the Katrina "survivors" so far? It may be cheaper to simpy pay the Iraqis to take the Katrina "poor" No there is a great idea! From what I see on the news, the ones that settled in Houston would be right at home in Bagdad. |
#15
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Cost of War
snip
"Even taking a conservative approach, we have been surprised at how large they are," said the study, referring to total war costs. "We can state, with some degree of confidence, that they exceed a trillion dollars." snip For any human activity, it always costs more and takes longer than you planned for. This includes war. Things are worse when you try to get by on the cheap/quick. Uncle George |
#16
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Cost of War
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 14:25:21 GMT, "Tom Gardner"
wrote: "Gunner" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 22:33:04 -0500, "tonyp" How much did we pay the Katrina "survivors" so far? It may be cheaper to simpy pay the Iraqis to take the Katrina "poor" Gunner My latest argument has been for "Slave Reparation". I argue that all African descendants SHOULD receive the $20,000 amount targeted. The cash must be taxed as income. It would be the most wonderful thing to ever happen to the economy! Every dollar pumped into each local economy circulates seven times and is taxed each time. I think it would be a net gain for the treasury and it would mark the end of racism, welfare, ADC, foodstamps, section 8 housing, and a billion other gov. programs. Mortgage the farm and buy stock in the companies that will suck-up this windfall. It's not just a black thing, if you put this cash into any demographic like "people with brown eyes", it would have the same effect. ================= Many states already have this program. Its called the lottery. Uncle George |
#17
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Cost of War
"For any human activity, it always costs more and takes longer
than you planned for. This includes war. Things are worse when you try to get by on the cheap/quick. - Uncle George " I wish I had said this. So very true. TMT |
#18
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Cost of War
--Potholes in the street I live on are at war with the
suspension on my truck and have just about declared victory on the wife's car. Now *there's* a war we could win.. -- "Steamboat Ed" Haas : Whatever happened Hacking the Trailing Edge! : to Tom Nelson? http://www.nmpproducts.com/intro.htm ---Decks a-wash in a sea of words--- |
#19
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Cost of War
Too_Many_Tools wrote: I can think of better ways of spending my share of the $2 trillion dollars. How about your share? TMT Cost of Iraq war could top $2 trillion: study By Jason Szep snip One scary thought is how the economy will react when the huge dollar volume of rubber checks for war supplies and related items *has* to be cut off. Of course the econony looks good right now....at least $ 100 billion (low number to quell debates about value) is being thrown at the economy per year. If you want to get real black helicopter on things...it's not much different than the book 1984 where you have production without an increase in the standard of living...make stuff then destroy it so you can keep the economy going. If you take a more realistic number of 250 billion per year going directly and indirectly to the war, that's about $ 1000 per person per year that's being thrown at the econony. The conservatives claimed that the $ 250 per taxpayer one time tax rebate really got things rolling again....how much is $ 1000 per *person* for at least 3 years keeping things rolling? However, the time will come when this has to end. What of machine shops and US producers at that point? how much will it hurt the auto makers when they aren't producing bradley's and humvees like they are going out of style? It's a LOT easier to scale up than to scale down production. I suspect that there will be massive lay offs and a real depression when the money dries up. Either the Govt keeps writing rubber checks to keep it in place or the rug gets pulled out from under the cash flow. Bush can't "win". If he does, the economy is screwed. Koz |
#20
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Cost of War
What you are describing is basic Keynesian economics. Despised by
Republicans since the New Deal. Now they are bragging on it. -- Glenn Ashmore I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com "Koz" wrote in message ... Too_Many_Tools wrote: I can think of better ways of spending my share of the $2 trillion dollars. How about your share? TMT Cost of Iraq war could top $2 trillion: study By Jason Szep snip One scary thought is how the economy will react when the huge dollar volume of rubber checks for war supplies and related items *has* to be cut off. Of course the econony looks good right now....at least $ 100 billion (low number to quell debates about value) is being thrown at the economy per year. If you want to get real black helicopter on things...it's not much different than the book 1984 where you have production without an increase in the standard of living...make stuff then destroy it so you can keep the economy going. If you take a more realistic number of 250 billion per year going directly and indirectly to the war, that's about $ 1000 per person per year that's being thrown at the econony. The conservatives claimed that the $ 250 per taxpayer one time tax rebate really got things rolling again....how much is $ 1000 per *person* for at least 3 years keeping things rolling? However, the time will come when this has to end. What of machine shops and US producers at that point? how much will it hurt the auto makers when they aren't producing bradley's and humvees like they are going out of style? It's a LOT easier to scale up than to scale down production. I suspect that there will be massive lay offs and a real depression when the money dries up. Either the Govt keeps writing rubber checks to keep it in place or the rug gets pulled out from under the cash flow. Bush can't "win". If he does, the economy is screwed. Koz |
#21
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Cost of Complacency
Thousands of deaths at The World Trade Center on 9/11 |
#22
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Cost of War
"Gunner" wrote The aim of untold millions is to be free to do exactly as they choose and for someone else to pay when things go wrong. For "untold millions", substitute "Dick and Dubya". For "someone else to pay", substitute "to double the national debt". For "things go wrong", substitute "when Republicans get all the power". -- TP |
#23
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Cost of War
"One scary thought is how the economy will react when the huge dollar
volume of rubber checks for war supplies and related items *has* to be cut off. Of course the econony looks good right now....at least $ 100 billion (low number to quell debates about value) is being thrown at the economy per year. If you want to get real black helicopter on things...it's not much different than the book 1984 where you have production without an increase in the standard of living...make stuff then destroy it so you can keep the economy going. If you take a more realistic number of 250 billion per year going directly and indirectly to the war, that's about $ 1000 per person per year that's being thrown at the econony. The conservatives claimed that the $ 250 per taxpayer one time tax rebate really got things rolling again....how much is $ 1000 per *person* for at least 3 years keeping things rolling? However, the time will come when this has to end. What of machine shops and US producers at that point? how much will it hurt the auto makers when they aren't producing bradley's and humvees like they are going out of style? It's a LOT easier to scale up than to scale down production. I suspect that there will be massive lay offs and a real depression when the money dries up. Either the Govt keeps writing rubber checks to keep it in place or the rug gets pulled out from under the cash flow. Bush can't "win". If he does, the economy is screwed. Koz " This wind down of the war is a very valid concern. The end of the Desert Storm saw 4 out of 10 employees in the respective industries losing their jobs. The best we can expect is a significant recession...you can only spend for so long whether you are the government or the consumer and the economic hangover of repayment lasts long after the party is over. The worse...well, remember the $2 trillion figure...it can come in many forms but you can be sure it will come from you the taxpayer...ready for higher taxes? In the future when problems arise with medicare, Social Security, rebuilding this nation's infrastructure, education...well the list goes on and on...the voter standing in the voting booth should remember the dollars spent and lost on Iraq. TMT |
#24
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Cost of War
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote In the future when problems arise with medicare, Social Security, rebuilding this nation's infrastructure, education...well the list goes on and on...the voter standing in the voting booth should remember the dollars spent and lost on Iraq. The voter would remember much more vividly, if our privatize-everything friends would take up my suggestion to privatize the national debt. By the way, do you want to know the real definition of "victory" in Iraq? I will tell you: taxes. "Freedom" will have "won" when Iraquis are paying taxes to their government, so that their government can "fight terrorists", build schools, and so on. But you won't hear Dick and Dubya say it quite that way. I can't seem to find any info on taxation in Iraq. Do Iraquis pay taxes? To whom? By what mechanism? -- TP |
#25
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Cost of War
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 11:07:22 -0500, the renowned "tonyp"
wrote: "Too_Many_Tools" wrote In the future when problems arise with medicare, Social Security, rebuilding this nation's infrastructure, education...well the list goes on and on...the voter standing in the voting booth should remember the dollars spent and lost on Iraq. The voter would remember much more vividly, if our privatize-everything friends would take up my suggestion to privatize the national debt. By the way, do you want to know the real definition of "victory" in Iraq? I will tell you: taxes. "Freedom" will have "won" when Iraquis are paying taxes to their government, so that their government can "fight terrorists", build schools, and so on. But you won't hear Dick and Dubya say it quite that way. I can't seem to find any info on taxation in Iraq. Do Iraquis pay taxes? To whom? By what mechanism? -- TP Lots of info on taxes from the central government- looks like they retained essentially the same tax structure as Saddam had in the 1980s. http://www.buyusa.gov/iraq/en/erocket2.html http://www.iraqtax.org/index.asp?LanguageAction=English I'm sure there are provincial and municipal tax revenue streams as well. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany -- "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com |
#26
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Cost of War
Ignoramus30282 wrote: Jon, I would like to see some reference on this. I suspect that there is some faking going on, but I am surprised at the relative amount of it that you cite. Some sources of fake numbers are overuse of "private security agencies" that are not counted as military, and also it must be noted that ignoring non-lethal casualties is misleading as to what the true human cost of war is. Yes, I think you may have something there. It may be that some people who are trying to get these numbers are counting the US mercenaries as if they were troops. Some of them really are troops in disguise, but a lot of them are much closer to bodyguards, security guards and the like. I saw a web site in mid 2005 that had some really good looking breakdowns on all this that made it look like they were really using accurate, detailed info on a case by case basis to come up with their numbers. Their figure at that time was roughly 7300, IIRC. The wounded, injured, disabled, etc. is a staggering number, too! There it gets pretty hard to tell the difference between a tiny wound from stray shrapnel that can be fixed up with a band-aid, and really serious wounds that may cause permanent disability. Dead is pretty obviously cut and dried, but the wounded stats leave a great deal of leeway to be interpreted. The number at that same mid 2005 date was listed at over 20,000. Clearly, some of those were patched up and went back to the theater. I wish I could find that web site, I just had confidence reading it that they were reporting the most accurate figures they could develop, and had gone to huge effort to verify what they had. I will keep looking for it. Back in 1968, I knew something had gone terribly wrong in Vietnam, even before there was anything on the news about the Tet offensive, because we lived a dozen blocks from Walter Reed Army Medical Center. All of a sudden, one morning, CH-47 helicopters started buzzing over our house every 15 minutes all day. We usually had 3 flights a week back then. News seems a lot harder to come by, now! Jon |
#27
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Cost of War
Gunner wrote: On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 22:43:04 -0600, Jon Elson wrote: actually killed on the ground in Iraq as part of the 2,200. No, it is EVEN WORSE! If you catch an enemy bullet, or get blown up by an IED, they have to count you as a war casualty. But, if your Bradley or Humvee goes off a bridge avoiding a possible IED, that is NOT counted as a combat casualty, but as an "accident"! If your truck blows a tire while you are dodging an RPG attack, and rolls over and kills you, they count it as a "vehicle accident". Ah..Jon...the total death count to date..also includes those who drowned, were killed in vehicle rollovers and so forth. They are not all combat casualties. In fact..only about 2/3- are combat deaths. I'm well aware of this. Yes, soldiers get killed in the US, too, due to training accidents, car accidents, getting drunk and doing stupid stuff. But, there seems to be a HUGE effort by the US military to classify every possible death that they can as Non-Combat. And, they are being VERY cagey about discussing the number of these "non combat" deaths. Jon |
#28
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Cost of War
Same time period - we got n-times filtered news. Living on a Mil base - mid pacific.
I came back to college, parents stayed there - due to job at had - and reason. We would send some news clips from the paper - and those would be clipped. The ARMY was at it. News was more at hand in the States than in the landing zone of ICBM's. Martin Martin Eastburn @ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net NRA LOH & Endowment Member NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder Jon Elson wrote: Ignoramus30282 wrote: Jon, I would like to see some reference on this. I suspect that there is some faking going on, but I am surprised at the relative amount of it that you cite. Some sources of fake numbers are overuse of "private security agencies" that are not counted as military, and also it must be noted that ignoring non-lethal casualties is misleading as to what the true human cost of war is. Yes, I think you may have something there. It may be that some people who are trying to get these numbers are counting the US mercenaries as if they were troops. Some of them really are troops in disguise, but a lot of them are much closer to bodyguards, security guards and the like. I saw a web site in mid 2005 that had some really good looking breakdowns on all this that made it look like they were really using accurate, detailed info on a case by case basis to come up with their numbers. Their figure at that time was roughly 7300, IIRC. The wounded, injured, disabled, etc. is a staggering number, too! There it gets pretty hard to tell the difference between a tiny wound from stray shrapnel that can be fixed up with a band-aid, and really serious wounds that may cause permanent disability. Dead is pretty obviously cut and dried, but the wounded stats leave a great deal of leeway to be interpreted. The number at that same mid 2005 date was listed at over 20,000. Clearly, some of those were patched up and went back to the theater. I wish I could find that web site, I just had confidence reading it that they were reporting the most accurate figures they could develop, and had gone to huge effort to verify what they had. I will keep looking for it. Back in 1968, I knew something had gone terribly wrong in Vietnam, even before there was anything on the news about the Tet offensive, because we lived a dozen blocks from Walter Reed Army Medical Center. All of a sudden, one morning, CH-47 helicopters started buzzing over our house every 15 minutes all day. We usually had 3 flights a week back then. News seems a lot harder to come by, now! Jon ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#29
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Cost of War
In article , Jon Elson says...
Ah..Jon...the total death count to date..also includes those who drowned, were killed in vehicle rollovers and so forth. They are not all combat casualties. In fact..only about 2/3- are combat deaths. I'm well aware of this. Yes, soldiers get killed in the US, too, due to training accidents, car accidents, getting drunk and doing stupid stuff. But, there seems to be a HUGE effort by the US military to classify every possible death that they can as Non-Combat. And, they are being VERY cagey about discussing the number of these "non combat" deaths. Secrecy is the watchword, yes. I wonder if part of that classification drive is designed to keep survior benefits to a bare minimum. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#30
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Cost of War
Only keeping track of / reporting the "good news" is not limited
to the government/military. It is pandemic throughout American culture, at least at the higher levels of our organizations. Think Enron, Kmart, Global Crossing, WorldCom, Tyco, etc. etc. One example of this is the front page [A1] item in the WSL Tues Jan 10 -- The DJIA's back! But when comparing financial performance across any significant time period it is imperative to adjust for inflation. The CPI-U for June 2001 was 178.0. The current CPI-U can be estimated at 198.3 based on 2005 data. Thus a correction factor of 198.3/178.0 or 1.114 should be applied so that the dollar figures represent equivalent purchasing power. When this is done, the DJIA would have to have reached 12,254 to be "back." Whether done with the intent to defraud, ignorance, or just to keep the boss happy makes no difference. The end result is always the same -- bad decisions. Uncle George =============================== On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:30:56 -0600, "Martin H. Eastburn" wrote: Same time period - we got n-times filtered news. Living on a Mil base - mid pacific. I came back to college, parents stayed there - due to job at had - and reason. We would send some news clips from the paper - and those would be clipped. The ARMY was at it. News was more at hand in the States than in the landing zone of ICBM's. Martin Martin Eastburn @ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net NRA LOH & Endowment Member NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder Jon Elson wrote: Ignoramus30282 wrote: Jon, I would like to see some reference on this. I suspect that there is some faking going on, but I am surprised at the relative amount of it that you cite. Some sources of fake numbers are overuse of "private security agencies" that are not counted as military, and also it must be noted that ignoring non-lethal casualties is misleading as to what the true human cost of war is. Yes, I think you may have something there. It may be that some people who are trying to get these numbers are counting the US mercenaries as if they were troops. Some of them really are troops in disguise, but a lot of them are much closer to bodyguards, security guards and the like. I saw a web site in mid 2005 that had some really good looking breakdowns on all this that made it look like they were really using accurate, detailed info on a case by case basis to come up with their numbers. Their figure at that time was roughly 7300, IIRC. The wounded, injured, disabled, etc. is a staggering number, too! There it gets pretty hard to tell the difference between a tiny wound from stray shrapnel that can be fixed up with a band-aid, and really serious wounds that may cause permanent disability. Dead is pretty obviously cut and dried, but the wounded stats leave a great deal of leeway to be interpreted. The number at that same mid 2005 date was listed at over 20,000. Clearly, some of those were patched up and went back to the theater. I wish I could find that web site, I just had confidence reading it that they were reporting the most accurate figures they could develop, and had gone to huge effort to verify what they had. I will keep looking for it. Back in 1968, I knew something had gone terribly wrong in Vietnam, even before there was anything on the news about the Tet offensive, because we lived a dozen blocks from Walter Reed Army Medical Center. All of a sudden, one morning, CH-47 helicopters started buzzing over our house every 15 minutes all day. We usually had 3 flights a week back then. News seems a lot harder to come by, now! Jon ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#31
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Cost of War
In article , Jon Elson says...
Yes, the total US dead is at or over 10,000 now. There's a web site that had amassed some data on the "non-combat" deaths and injuries, but I can't find it now. It was quite a shock to me to see how the administration is covering this up. In Vietnam, we faked the enemy "body count". Now, we are faking OUR OWN "body count"! Incredible, disgusting, maybe a new kind of war crime, to not let us know what the real cost of this war is! Many more americans have died in iraq, than in the 9/11 disasters, by far. The only worse thing than the body count (which as you mentioned can be covered up) is having to start up a draft. Either of those will swing public opinion quite far. The latest in this is the "Grannies Against the War" in new york city. The NYPD had to cuff and arrest 18 grandmothers who were picketing an armed forces recruiting center. http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--anti-wargrandmoth0110jan10,0,27744.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork I hope they weren't too hard on them. Those grannies can get awful rough when they want to! Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#32
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Cost of War
Koz wrote: Too_Many_Tools wrote: I can think of better ways of spending my share of the $2 trillion dollars. How about your share? TMT Cost of Iraq war could top $2 trillion: study By Jason Szep snip One scary thought is how the economy will react when the huge dollar volume of rubber checks for war supplies and related items *has* to be cut off. Of course the econony looks good right now....at least $ 100 billion (low number to quell debates about value) is being thrown at the economy per year. If you want to get real black helicopter on things...it's not much different than the book 1984 where you have production without an increase in the standard of living...make stuff then destroy it so you can keep the economy going. If you take a more realistic number of 250 billion per year going directly and indirectly to the war, that's about $ 1000 per person per year that's being thrown at the econony. The conservatives claimed that the $ 250 per taxpayer one time tax rebate really got things rolling again....how much is $ 1000 per *person* for at least 3 years keeping things rolling? However, the time will come when this has to end. What of machine shops and US producers at that point? how much will it hurt the auto makers when they aren't producing bradley's and humvees like they are going out of style? It's a LOT easier to scale up than to scale down production. I suspect that there will be massive lay offs and a real depression when the money dries up. Well, I have been through this one before. I well remember what happened starting in about 1967 or so, as the Vietnam war began to wind down, in the military production sense, that is. Whole machine shops were just turned off at the end of one day, everybody left, and never came back. It continued through the early '70s. Jon |
#33
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Cost of War
"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message ... Only keeping track of / reporting the "good news" is not limited to the government/military. It is pandemic throughout American culture, at least at the higher levels of our organizations. Think Enron, Kmart, Global Crossing, WorldCom, Tyco, etc. etc. One example of this is the front page [A1] item in the WSL Tues Jan 10 -- The DJIA's back! But when comparing financial performance across any significant time period it is imperative to adjust for inflation. The CPI-U for June 2001 was 178.0. The current CPI-U can be estimated at 198.3 based on 2005 data. Thus a correction factor of 198.3/178.0 or 1.114 should be applied so that the dollar figures represent equivalent purchasing power. When this is done, the DJIA would have to have reached 12,254 to be "back." Whether done with the intent to defraud, ignorance, or just to keep the boss happy makes no difference. The end result is always the same -- bad decisions. Uncle George Being the bringer of good news can't be underestimated, so it's understandable why people in positions of authority can't seem to stop themselves from always presenting the most rosy scenario they can. The federal government has taken this to a new level with the Iraq war. I see statistics on TV regularly that say we have 2,200 deaths and around 12,000 wounded. But if the truth were told the total casualties from the war for the US are closer to 50,000, with 10,000 dead and 40,000 wounded. John's Hopkins University estimates the number of wounded to be around 44,000 and breaks it down into amputees, severe head injuries, suicides, and mentally incapacitated. When you add it all up it's clear that the costs borne by the US are much higher than what the Bush Administration is telling the public. Like the war in Vietnam, the truth about what it costs is so unpalatable that the government is using everything possible to hide it from us. The sad thing is that if you look for it you can find out what the real costs are, both in money and in men. When you see how much this war has cost us it's not a hard determination to make that it is not worth the price we have paid, and what's worse, the price were going to keep paying until we finally admit the truth and get out of there. Hawke |
#34
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Cost of War
Hawke wrote: Being the bringer of good news can't be underestimated, so it's understandable why people in positions of authority can't seem to stop themselves from always presenting the most rosy scenario they can. The federal government has taken this to a new level with the Iraq war. I see statistics on TV regularly that say we have 2,200 deaths and around 12,000 wounded. But if the truth were told the total casualties from the war for the US are closer to 50,000, with 10,000 dead and 40,000 wounded. John's Hopkins University estimates the number of wounded to be around 44,000 and breaks it down into amputees, severe head injuries, suicides, and mentally incapacitated. When you add it all up it's clear that the costs borne by the US are much higher than what the Bush Administration is telling the public. Like the war in Vietnam, the truth about what it costs is so unpalatable that the government is using everything possible to hide it from us. The sad thing is that if you look for it you can find out what the real costs are, both in money and in men. When you see how much this war has cost us it's not a hard determination to make that it is not worth the price we have paid, and what's worse, the price were going to keep paying until we finally admit the truth and get out of there. Hawke 10,000 US deaths in Iraq ? Wow, wait till the liberal media finds out ! |
#35
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Cost of War
In article ,
"Hawke" wrote: Being the bringer of good news can't be underestimated, so it's understandable why people in positions of authority can't seem to stop themselves from always presenting the most rosy scenario they can. The federal government has taken this to a new level with the Iraq war. I see statistics on TV regularly that say we have 2,200 deaths and around 12,000 wounded. But if the truth were told the total casualties from the war for the US are closer to 50,000, with 10,000 dead and 40,000 wounded. John's Hopkins University estimates the number of wounded to be around 44,000 and breaks it down into amputees, severe head injuries, suicides, and mentally incapacitated. When you add it all up it's clear that the costs borne by the US are much higher than what the Bush Administration is telling the public. Like the war in Vietnam, the truth about what it costs is so unpalatable that the government is using everything possible to hide it from us. The sad thing is that if you look for it you can find out what the real costs are, both in money and in men. When you see how much this war has cost us it's not a hard determination to make that it is not worth the price we have paid, and what's worse, the price were going to keep paying until we finally admit the truth and get out of there. It's never too late to do the right thing. -- Free men own guns, slaves don't www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/ |
#36
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Cost of Complacency
In article 01c61637$811cd2c0$d4a5c3d8@race, * says...
Thousands of deaths at The World Trade Center on 9/11 Many more than that dead and wounded in Iraq. And what ever happend to afghanistan? We've given up there. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#37
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Cost of Complacency
On 13 Jan 2006 06:07:42 -0800, jim rozen
wrote: In article 01c61637$811cd2c0$d4a5c3d8@race, * says... Thousands of deaths at The World Trade Center on 9/11 Many more than that dead and wounded in Iraq. And what ever happend to afghanistan? We've given up there. Jim No, you just out-sourced it to us Canadians, where, I might add, for what it is worth, one of our snipers beat Carlos Hathcock's record... :=) BK |
#38
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Cost of War
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:40:54 -0600, Jon Elson
wrote: There it gets pretty hard to tell the difference between a tiny wound from stray shrapnel that can be fixed up with a band-aid, and really serious wounds that may cause permanent disability. Just ask John Kerry. Gunner The aim of untold millions is to be free to do exactly as they choose and for someone else to pay when things go wrong. In the past few decades, a peculiar and distinctive psychology has emerged in England. Gone are the civility, sturdy independence, and admirable stoicism that carried the English through the war years .. It has been replaced by a constant whine of excuses, complaints, and special pleading. The collapse of the British character has been as swift and complete as the collapse of British power. Theodore Dalrymple, |
#39
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Cost of War
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:40:54 -0600, Jon Elson
wrote: Back in 1968, I knew something had gone terribly wrong in Vietnam, even before there was anything on the news about the Tet offensive, because we lived a dozen blocks from Walter Reed Army Medical Center. All of a sudden, one morning, CH-47 helicopters started buzzing over our house every 15 minutes all day. We usually had 3 flights a week back then. News seems a lot harder to come by, now! Jon You mean the Tet Offensive that the Leftist Media portrayed as a terrible defeat for the US, when in actuality..it spelled the decimation of the Viet Cong, and would have forced the North to terms, if it wasnt for the Media giving them much needed support? Gunner The aim of untold millions is to be free to do exactly as they choose and for someone else to pay when things go wrong. In the past few decades, a peculiar and distinctive psychology has emerged in England. Gone are the civility, sturdy independence, and admirable stoicism that carried the English through the war years .. It has been replaced by a constant whine of excuses, complaints, and special pleading. The collapse of the British character has been as swift and complete as the collapse of British power. Theodore Dalrymple, |
#40
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - The Cost of Complacency
On 13 Jan 2006 06:07:42 -0800, jim rozen
wrote: In article 01c61637$811cd2c0$d4a5c3d8@race, * says... Thousands of deaths at The World Trade Center on 9/11 Many more than that dead and wounded in Iraq. And what ever happend to afghanistan? We've given up there. Jim ???????????? You dont pay much attention to any news source besides the Anti-Bush, Anti-Republican big media, do you? Gunner The aim of untold millions is to be free to do exactly as they choose and for someone else to pay when things go wrong. In the past few decades, a peculiar and distinctive psychology has emerged in England. Gone are the civility, sturdy independence, and admirable stoicism that carried the English through the war years .. It has been replaced by a constant whine of excuses, complaints, and special pleading. The collapse of the British character has been as swift and complete as the collapse of British power. Theodore Dalrymple, |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
gas vs electric water heater energy cost. | Home Repair | |||
Cost of Heating oil; Cost of lumber? | Woodworking | |||
cost for slate or synthetic slate roof? | Home Ownership | |||
Cost to install bamboo floor? DIY? | Home Repair | |||
Cost of using a tumble dryer | UK diy |