In article . com, "Peter
Wieck" wrote:

John:

The amount of $$ appropriated for the Gulf War to-date is ~averaging
4.8 billion-with-a-B dollars per month. Allow 24 months, that comes to:
$115,200,000,000 .

115,200,000,000/285,000,000 = $404/person.

As of November 5.

This does not count the thousands of contracts for 'infrastructure' and
other items. That total brings the cost-per-capita to around
$750/person excepting those employed by Haliburton.

Even allowing for the fact that not all capitas are taxpayers, that is
still a far cry from the earlier claim that the cost was about $27,000 per
taxpayer!


Regards,

John Byrns


Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/

xrongor wrote:

lacking a real plan for the economy, the president chose a war. not the
best reason to go to war...

but hey, if it will help the economy, why dont we start two?

randy


It ok as long as YOU or your family aint doin the fighing and dying......

Lazy Senior

Exactly my point. When arguing, uh... discussing... uh, having a
food-fight over politics the truth is a great deal more useful than
wishful thinking and shoddy anecdotes. However it is not terribly
popular nor terribly effective at changing 'popular perception' as any
campaign manager will tell you. For that, one needs mud, deception and
many shades and distortions of 'facts'.

The damnable part of all this is that none of it was actually
necessary. But 'we' are in it now. Clinton could not keep it in his
pants and got impeached and survived the experience. GWB could not keep
in in his pants, and 2000+ American Military are dead along with
thousands of American civilians, and tens of thousands of innocents of
several stripes. Which do you _honestly_ think is worse?

Never get into a fight with a guy littler than you are. If you win you
are a bully, if you lose you are a bum. And either way the other kids
in the playground either fear or ridicule you. If everything we need to
know we learned in Kindergarten, that is one lesson missed on Capitol
Hill & the White House.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote PA

In article . com, "Peter
Wieck" wrote:

The damnable part of all this is that none of it was actually
necessary. But 'we' are in it now. Clinton could not keep it in his
pants and got impeached and survived the experience. GWB could not keep
in in his pants, and 2000+ American Military are dead along with
thousands of American civilians,

"thousands of American civilians", as a result of the war in Iraq? Isn't
that shading the truth just a bit?


Regards,

John Byrns


Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/

WHOOPS!

You are correct. Civilian contractor deaths are ~285,
collateral-in-region (Working in Saudi, Jordan, Turkey, Qatar and
elsewhere, dead from specific attacks by al Qaeda on Civilians) exceeds
1000. All 'western' civilian deaths contractor or otherwise in Iraq
also exceeds 1000. Mixed up too many numbers. Don't forget I was ~200
yards from the Oasis/Petroleum Center incidents last year in Al-Khobar
when the (American) wife of a friend of mine was shot up very badly
(she survived), and many were killed.

Point being that none of it was/is necessary, and any positive results
are dubious at best.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

In article .com, "Peter
Wieck" wrote:

WHOOPS!

You are correct. Civilian contractor deaths are ~285,
collateral-in-region (Working in Saudi, Jordan, Turkey, Qatar and
elsewhere, dead from specific attacks by al Qaeda on Civilians) exceeds
1000.

Over what time period? Why doesn't the media play this up, it sounds like
an opportunity they would love?


Regards,

John Byrns


Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/

Since the start of hostilities on Gulf II. I thought that was pretty
much the only time-period under discussion at the moment

And they do. They really do. Most do not want to hear it, however. It
was on NPR some mornings ago, part of a 'regular' weekly feature. I am
thinking it was last Thursday, but it could have been any of the
mid-week days last week that I heard it.

Generally, I tend to discount most of the privately developed body
counts unless sourced from two independent entities. For instance,
Iraqi civilan deaths range from ~25,000+ (US military unofficial
estimates based on reported deaths from publicized incidents) to
100,000 (The Lancet) to 250,000 (local sources not to be trusted at
all).

And "the media" is hardly pro or anti anything in its entirety.
Certainly Fox is different from CNN, and Sky makes Fox look like a
Liberal Bastion. It's all in accordance to what you wish to hear, what
you wish to believe, and how much you choose to question "Received
Wisdom". But then, most of us are acutely uncomfortable when we are
confused by information that conflicts with our carefully managed and
protected opinion. We would rather vilify the source of that
information than allow our opinion to change.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Peter Wieck wrote:
Clinton could not keep it in his
pants and got impeached and survived the experience.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote PA

Clinton got impeached??? How did I miss that, you been watching too much
Fox News Network (AKA The Republican Channel).

Lazy Senior
................................
Just for your records Pete:

In February 1999 the Senate defeated both articles of impeachment.

Microsoft ® Encarta ® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.

Lazy Senior wrote:
Peter Wieck wrote:
Clinton could not keep it in his

pants and got impeached and survived the experience.


Peter Wieck
Wyncote PA

Clinton got impeached??? How did I miss that, you been watching too much
Fox News Network (AKA The Republican Channel).

Lazy Senior

Man Lazy,

You have a lot of trouble understanding simple stuff. Clinton got
impeached... Yes he did! He was found not guilty, and continued as
president.

Where exactly were you during the Clinton presidency, Antartica?

Just incase you want to read about it:

http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-go...tonimpeach.htm

-Chuck

Have it your way.... Levees on the Mississippi. Pick your pork.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA