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)

"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

"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

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

"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

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

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

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 =----

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

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,

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,

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,

"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.

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.

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

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

"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

--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---

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

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

Thousands of deaths at The World Trade Center on 9/11

"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

"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

"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

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

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

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

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 =----

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

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 =----

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

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

"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

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 !

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/

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

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

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,

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,

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,