The cost of war.

valentine · Post by **valentine** » December 21, 2006, 10:50 am

I post without comment.

George Bush at a conference at The US Institute of Peace revealed the following information about the war in Iraq.
More troops are being prepared for engagement in Iraq in the New Year. The cost in US military lives so far is, 2,950 personnel.
So far the financial cost has been, 350 billion $ Next year congress has approved a further 170 billion$.

Post by **muscle** » December 21, 2006, 11:20 am

The Bush Administration frequently quotes the lower death rate in Iraq as proof that it is not another Vietnam. Wonderful spin but medically bogus.
1. Better "Battle Rattle" or body armor, first aid and buddy care, great medics, rapid EMS, Forward Surgical Teams and rapid Air Evac keep wounded soldiers alive that would have died in Vietnam. Within 3 days someone wounded in Iraq has passed through Landstuhl and is at Walter Reed. I worked the Joint Theatre Trauma Registry (JTTR). As of February 2006, we had over 30K amputees. Most would have died during Vietnam. Techniques developed by the fantastic medical teams during Vietnam made today's system possible. The VA is backlogged over 600,000 cases according to their own estimates. Caring for 40K plus amputees with advanced prostetics for the next 50 or 60 years? The Va is already so top heavy with administrators that they can hardly afford toilet paper.
2. Soldiers injured by IEDs are no longer considered battle injured or KIAs. Only those killed by a bullet are. Another wonderful way to skew the body count. Dead is dead.
And what for? So we could help Iran win the Iran/Iraq War? So we can make KBR even richer and pay off Bush's campaign contributors? So we could protect the Israelis? So we could avenge the attempt on Bush Sr's life ("He tried to kill my daddy.")
And the American public just lets it happen.
Vote with your feet.

oldfield · Post by **oldfield** » December 21, 2006, 1:53 pm

The military loves to use acronyms don't they.

Post by **muscle** » December 21, 2006, 1:59 pm

Sorry, if there are any that are not self-explanitory I will translate. I have been there so long that I think in them. Being multi-service, I was often called upon to translate between Army and Air Force as some acronyms mean different things. I will write things out fully in the future.

Post by **BKKSTAN** » December 21, 2006, 2:03 pm

muscle wrote:Sorry, if there are any that are not self-explanitory I will translate. I have been there so long that I think in them. Being multi-service, I was often called upon to translate between Army and Air Force as some acronyms mean different things. I will write things out fully in the future.

Chart it SOAP

Post by **muscle** » December 21, 2006, 3:29 pm

BKKSTAN wrote:
muscle wrote:Sorry, if there are any that are not self-explanitory I will translate. I have been there so long that I think in them. Being multi-service, I was often called upon to translate between Army and Air Force as some acronyms mean different things. I will write things out fully in the future.
Chart it SOAP

SOAP it is. Just so long as I do not have to write any Nursing Diagnosis to go along with it.

Post by **FrazeeDK** » December 21, 2006, 5:39 pm

not being prescient I certainly cannot say if the outcome in Iraq will be worth it or not. Only with the passing of time can we look back in wise 20/20 hindsight to say yea or nay and dissect thre reasons why...

Post by **muscle** » December 21, 2006, 6:24 pm

True enough answer. I watched the human toll passing through Walter Reed and the financial gain by the Beltway Bandits and drew my own conclusions. But that's after being a grunt field medic and RN for years. I can't justify a single American being harmed to make KBR richer or prop up a corrupt govenment that will never work. I got vaccinated with that cynic needle a long time ago.

Post by **BKKSTAN** » December 21, 2006, 7:04 pm

I don't know if it will be worth it or not.Hindsight always shows mistakes made!I supported the removal of Saddam because I believe he was a constant destabilizing force in the area with the justification being that he had WMD's and used them in the past and was completely uncooperative in the verification process lending credence to the belief that he still had them!
In hindsight again,we found that he probably destroyed them as he was supposed to,but he refused to cooperate in the verification process.

I am angry at those countries that were getting oil and making Saddam rich during the embargo and refusing to hold him accountable.We should not have had to go at this unilaterally!

To me the UN is a limpdick organization,almost worthless in it's enforcement policies!

The biggest mistake was trying to impose a democratic National unity gov't!We should have let the country be divided up into 3 seperate gov'ts,with the Sunni's suffering the consequences of backing and reaping the benefits of Saddam!

Post by **treehugger** » December 21, 2006, 7:26 pm

It is interesting that whilst the American and British soldiers die in Iraq (note: to establish a democracy), Tony Blair is trying to drum up support among Iraq's Arab neighbours. Look at them, firstly Americas friends:

Kuwait - Absolute monarchy
Saudi - Absolute monarchy
Bahrain - Absolute monarchy
United Arab Emirates - conferseration of absolute monarchies
Oman - Absolute monarchy
Qatar - absolute monarchy
Jordan - absolute manarch
Pakistan - Military Dictatorship

All the above are 'good' people who don't require democracy because they supply the west (especially America) with oil and friendship.

secondly America's 'non friends':

Iran - theocratic dictatorship
Syria - absolute dictatorship
Lebanon - Syrian outstation

These are all 'bad people' because they disagree with Bush & Blair

Where are these other Democratic Nations that Bush & Blair want to emulate? The idea of Democracy, as we in the west know it, simply does not exist in the Middle East.

Post by **muscle** » December 21, 2006, 7:45 pm

BKKSTAN wrote:I don't know if it will be worth it or not.Hindsight always shows mistakes made!I supported the removal of Saddam because I believe he was a constant destabilizing force in the area with the justification being that he had WMD's and used them in the past and was completely uncooperative in the verification process lending credence to the belief that he still had them!
In hindsight again,we found that he probably destroyed them as he was supposed to,but he refused to cooperate in the verification process.

I am angry at those countries that were getting oil and making Saddam rich during the embargo and refusing to hold him accountable.We should not have had to go at this unilaterally!

To me the UN is a limpdick organization,almost worthless in it's enforcement policies!

The biggest mistake was trying to impose a democratic National unity gov't!We should have let the country be divided up into 3 seperate gov'ts,with the Sunni's suffering the consequences of backing and reaping the benefits of Saddam!

Too bad the State Department does not have the vision to hire peple who have the ability to think like you do. That is the most reasonable assessment I have heard yet.
The lack of ability to put intelligent, thoughtful peple in positions of authority just furthers my belief that Mid East conflict is encouraged as it makes for good business for the defense contractors and provides a smoke screen to hide domestic social issues. Is there more money in providing decent primary and secondary eduction and health care or in munitions and destruction/rebuilding? Sorry for the rhetorical question.

Post by **skipvice** » December 21, 2006, 10:46 pm

FrazeeDK wrote:not being prescient I certainly cannot say if the outcome in Iraq will be worth it or not. Only with the passing of time can we look back in wise 20/20 hindsight to say yea or nay and dissect thre reasons why...

I voted dont know as i agree with frazeedk it is always easer to look back and disect the past, only the future will tell if the war was worth it.

laphanphon · Post by **laphanphon** » February 5, 2007, 9:46 am

a staggering figure, how to spend it otherwise, and of course the wisedom and justification of a war monger.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCo ... 304&page=1
[quote]Who's Counting: How Iraq Trillion Could Have Been Spent

Feb. 4, 2007

Post by **JimboPSM** » February 5, 2007, 11:32 am

Just a little reminder, in the last six years Bush 43 has increased the US National Debt by 50% or 3 trillion dollars.

Well, actually to be accurate it was only 2.97 trillion dollars

Post by **cookie** » February 5, 2007, 3:38 pm

Oh, that's why the US stock market is so high

Bush pumped some money in the US economy

Post by **Roadman** » February 6, 2007, 3:22 am

The reasons for not invading Iraq and the highly likely outcome were being expressed by a large non American voice before the first bomb fell.
But those with revengence as their reason will never listen.

Post by **JimboPSM** » February 6, 2007, 3:59 am

cookie wrote:Oh, that's why the US stock market is so high
Bush pumped some money in the US economy

Spot on, it's one of the oldest political scams, a morally bankrupt administration spending lots of money (that it hasn't got by taxing the people!) - in the short term it boosts the domestic economy and the administration believes (quite correctly) that enough of the people are dumb enough to be fooled all of the time.

......... but there is a major problem, it's all been done on borrowed money which will have to be repaid by the next administration raising taxes, this then makes everyone feel bad and as a result the new administration is blamed and will be kicked out as a high tax administration.

So the next Potus has been screwed before she even takes office

Post by **Stu** » February 6, 2007, 4:34 am

Roadman wrote:The reasons for not invading Iraq and the highly likely outcome were being expressed by a large non American voice before the first bomb fell.
But those with revengence as their reason will never listen.

Some of us were protesting in the States too, before the invasion. Sorry to say it, but we told them so.

Post by **Alagrl** » February 7, 2007, 3:14 am

Stu wrote:
Roadman wrote: Some of us were protesting in the States too, before the invasion. Sorry to say it, but we told them so.

Hear, hear!! And my father and my husband are former U.S. military...it's not as if a huge population of gung-ho military supporters were urging us into war. Many of those who had been there were skeptical, to say the least!

Post by **Galee** » February 7, 2007, 3:42 am

For our American friends out there, you might be interested to know that the main news in the UK today is all about "Friendly Fire".

The American and British Goverments have been covering up about an incident that happened 4 years ago, where a British soldier was killed. Both Goverments denied that evidence of the event existed. Today a national newspaper has obtained the footage from one of the American planes, that straffed a British convoy, and it has been shown on national TV.

It makes sad viewing.

Obviously we all feel sad for the soldiers family, but the majority of people bear no malice toward the pilot. He made a mistake, human error, and events like this will happen on the battle field.

It will take more than sad events like this to tarnish the special friendship the two nations have.

The cost of war.

Will the potential final outcome have been worth it?

The cost of war.

I Don't Know

Re: I Don't Know