Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far

Religions > Atheism > Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 3 of 4

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Khubla"
Date:	07 Feb 2006 03:41:03 AM
Object:	Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far

IRAQ'S CIVIL WAR HAS COST $3,000 PER U.S. FAMILY-- SO FAR - LINK - God
forbid critics of the war on Iraq should compare it with the war in Vietnam.
But perhaps it is worth mentioning that the liberation of Iraq is now
costing more each month than the preservation of the Republic of South
Vietnam did more than 30 years ago.
.

User: "Ye Old One"
Title: Re: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far	10 Feb 2006 02:03:17 PM

On 10 Feb 2006 10:35:33 -0800, "Noone Inparticular"
<unreve89@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

firelock...@hotmail.com wrote:

Noone Inparticular wrote:

firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote:

Noone Inparticular wrote:

You are making a rather bald attempt to equate criticism of a policy
with appeasement of a brutal dictator.

And you are making a rather bald attempt to transfer responsibility
for the outcome from those people actually responsible to those
people you personally have a beef with.

Indeed I am. GW1 and Clinton *DO* bear some responsibility for the
consequences of their policies.

Their policy wasn't "starve Iraqi children", though, so any attempt
to blame them for the decisions of the Iraqi government in this
matter are patently ridiculous. If your boss cuts your pay from
upper middle class to lower middle class, and you let your kids
starve to death because you didn't want to give up your luxury
car and mansion, would any sensible person agree with you
if you said your kids' deaths were your boss' fault?

That wasn't the santion - that was the Iraqi government.

His administration had in its power any number of means to ease
the suffering of people directly affected by their policies.

Did they - name a few?

There were
good political and strategic reasons for the sanctions, but their
imposition cost an estimated 1 million Iraqi children their lives.

No they didn't. There was nothing at all in the santions that could
have harmed a single child.

You
can pretend that the USA in general and the Clinton adminstration in
particular are blameless, but a foolish blindness to accountability
doesn't mean that pointing out our culpability amounts to appeasing a
dictator.

Only Iraq and its government were culpable.
--
Bob.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far	10 Feb 2006 07:34:06 PM

On 10 Feb 2006 10:35:33 -0800, "Noone Inparticular"
<unreve89@hotmail.com> wrote:

Let's look at Clinton alone. He was in power for eight years. During
the entire eight years of his presidency he and his adminstration were
aware of the devastation that the sanctions were causing innocent
Iraqis. His administration had in its power any number of means to ease
the suffering of people directly affected by their policies. There were
good political and strategic reasons for the sanctions, but their
imposition cost an estimated 1 million Iraqi children their lives

source for that number?
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far	10 Feb 2006 07:33:12 PM

On 9 Feb 2006 15:17:06 -0800, "Noone Inparticular"
<unreve89@hotmail.com> wrote:

You are making a rather bald attempt to equate criticism of a policy
with appeasement of a brutal dictator. I am quite sure I know why you
are making this rather simple minded equation, but the bottom line is
it is perfectly ok to find fault with the policies of the very people
who can control that policy's future. It is especially OK if that
policy has the indirect effect of causing the deaths of tens of
thousands of children.

except, of course, that the policies didn't kill anyone. hussein did.
That the architects of that policy felt that the

deaths of all those people was worth the price is a legitimate target
for criticism.

the UN retracted its report on the effects of the sanctions when it
was revealed the figures came from
the iraqi health ministry.
.

User: "wbarwell"
Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far	10 Feb 2006 09:01:54 PM

wrote:

On 9 Feb 2006 15:17:06 -0800, "Noone Inparticular"
<unreve89@hotmail.com> wrote:

except, of course, that the policies didn't kill anyone. hussein did.

No, the USA did. Bush bombed the water systems,
the sewer systems, teh dams.
Not Saddam. The uS cut off supplies to the water systems of Iraq,
knowing full well mass epidemics
would follow.
The US did this, not Saddam.
It was US Secretary of State Albright who admitted
that this was a price in innocent life the US was willing to pay.
We did it, not Saddam.
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We
have heard that a half million children have died.
I mean, that's more children than died in
Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think
this is a very hard choice, but the price--we
think the price is worth it.
--60 Minutes (5/12/96)
http://www.progressive.org/0801issue/nagy0901.html
The Secret Behind the Sanctions
How the U.S. Intentionally Destroyed Iraq's Water
Supply by Thomas J. Nagy
Over the last two years, I've discovered documents
of the Defense Intelligence Agency proving beyond
a doubt that, contrary to the Geneva Convention,
the U.S. government intentionally used sanctions
against Iraq to degrade thecountry's water supply
after the Gulf War. The United States knew the
cost that civilian Iraqis, mostly children, would
pay, and it went ahead anyway.
The primary document, "Iraq Water Treatment
Vulnerabilities," is dated January 22, 1991. It
spells out how sanctions will prevent Iraq from
supplying clean water to its citizens. "Iraq
depends on importing specialized equipment and
some chemicals to purify its water supply, most
of which is heavily mineralized and frequently
brackish to saline," the document states. "With
no domestic sources of both water treatment
replacement parts and some essential chemicals,
Iraq will continue attempts to circumvent United
Nations Sanctions to import these vital
commodities. Failing to secure supplies will
result in a shortage of pure drinking water
for much of the population. This could lead to
increased incidences, if not epidemics, of
disease."
The document goes into great technical detail
about the sources and quality of Iraq's water
supply. The quality of untreated water "generally
is poor," and drinking such water "could result
in diarrhea," the document says. It notes that
Iraq's rivers "contain biological materials,
pollutants, and are laden with bacteria. Unless
the water is purified with chlorine, epidemics
of such diseases as cholera, hepatitis, and
typhoid could occur."
The document notes that the importation of
chlorine "has been embargoed" by sanctions.
"Recent reports indicate the chlorine supply
is critically low. "Food and medicine will
also be affected, the document states.
"Food processing, electronic, and, particularly,
pharmaceutical plants require extremely pure
water that is free from biological contaminants,"
it says.
The document addresses possible Iraqi counter-
measures to obtain drinkable water despite
sanctions. "Iraq conceivably could truck water
from the mountain reservoirs to urban areas.
But the capability to gain significant quantities
is extremely limited," the document states. "The
amount of pipe on hand and the lack of pumping
stations would limit laying pipelines to these
reservoirs. Moreover, without chlorine
purification, the water still would contain
biological pollutants. Some affluent Iraqis
could obtain their own minimally adequate
supply of good quality water from Northern
Iraqi sources. If boiled, the water could be
safely consumed. Poorer Iraqis and industries
requiring large quantities of pure water would
not be able to meet their needs."
The document also discounted the possibility of
Iraqis using rainwater.
"Precipitation occurs in Iraq during the winter
and spring, but it falls primarily in the
northern mountains," it says. "Sporadic rains,
sometimes heavy, fall over the lower plains.
But Iraq could not rely on rain to provide
adequate pure water. "As an alternative, "Iraq
could try convincing the United Nations or
individual countries to exempt water treatment
supplies from sanctions for humanitarian reasons,"
the document says. "It probably also is
attempting
to purchase supplies by using some sympathetic
countries as fronts. If such attempts fail,
Iraqi alternatives are not adequate for their
national requirements."
In cold language, the document spells out what is
in store: "Iraq will suffer increasing shortages
of purified water because of the lack of required
chemicals and desalination membranes. Incidences
of disease, including possible epidemics, will
become probable unless the population were
careful to boil water. "The document gives a
timetable for the destruction of Iraq's water
supplies. "Iraq's overall water treatment
capability will suffer a slow decline, rather
than a precipitous halt," it says. "Although
Iraq is already experiencing a loss of water
treatment capability, it probably will take
at least six months (to June 1991) before the
system is fully degraded."
This document, which was partially declassified
but unpublicized in 1995, can be found on the
Pentagon's web site at www.gulflink.osd.mil.
(I disclosed this document last fall. But the
news media showed little interest in it. The only
reporters I know of who wrote lengthy stories
on it were Felicity Arbuthnot in the Sunday
Herald of Scotland, who broke the story, and
Charlie Reese of the Orlando Sentinel, who did
a follow-up.)
Recently, I have come across other DIA documents
that confirm the Pentagon's monitoring of the
degradation of Iraq's water supply. These
documents have not been publicized until now.
The first one in this batch is called "Disease
Information," and is also dated January 22, 1991.
At the top, it says, "Subject: Effects of Bombing
on Disease Occurrence in Baghdad." The analysis is
blunt: "Increased incidence of diseases will be
attributable to degradation of normal preventive
medicine, waste disposal, water purification/
distribution, electricity, and decreased ability
to control disease outbreaks. Any urban area in
Iraq that has received infrastructure damage will
have similar problems."
The document proceeds to itemize the likely
outbreaks. It mentions "acute diarrhea" brought
on by bacteria such as E. coli, shigella, and
salmonella, or by protozoa such as giardia, which
will affect "particularly children," or by
rotavirus, which will also affect "particularly
children," a phrase it puts in parentheses. And
it cites the possibilities of typhoid and cholera
outbreaks. The document warns that the Iraqi
government may "blame the United States for
public health problems created by the military
conflict." The second DIA document, "Disease
Outbreaks in Iraq," is dated February 21, 1990,
but the year is clearly a typo and should be
1991.
It states: "Conditions are favorable for
communicable disease outbreaks, particularly in
major urban areas affected by coalition bombing."
It adds: "Infectious disease prevalence in major
Iraqi urban areas targeted by coalition bombing
(Baghdad, Basrah) undoubtedly has increased since
the beginning of Desert Storm. . ..
Current public health problems are attributable to
the reduction of normal preventive medicine, waste
disposal, water purification and distribution,
electricity, and the decreased ability to control
disease outbreaks."
This document lists the "most likely diseases
during next sixty-ninety days
(descending order): diarrheal diseases
(particularly children); acute respiratory
illnesses (colds and influenza); typhoid;
hepatitis A (particularly children); measles,
diphtheria, and pertussis (particularly
children); meningitis, including meningococcal
(particularly children); cholera (possible,
but less likely)."
Like the previous document, this one warns that
the Iraqi government might "propagandize
increases of endemic diseases. "The third
document
in this series, "Medical Problems in Iraq," is
dated March 15, 1991. It says: "Communicable
diseases in Baghdad are more widespread than
usually observed during this time of the year
and are linked to the poor sanitary conditions
(contaminated water supplies and improper sewage
disposal) resulting from the war. According to
a United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)/World
Health Organization report, the quantity of
potable water is less than 5 percent of the
original supply, there are no operational
water and sewage treatment plants, and the
reported incidence of diarrhea is four times above
normal levels. Additionally, respiratory
infections are on the rise. Children particularly
have been affected by these diseases."
Perhaps to put a gloss on things, the document
states, "There are indications that the situation
is improving and that the population is coping
with the degraded conditions." But it adds:
"Conditions in Baghdad remain favorable for
communicable disease outbreaks."
The fourth document, "Status of Disease at Refugee
Camps," is dated May 1991. The summary says,
"Cholera and measles have emerged at refugee
camps. Further infectious diseases will spread
due to inadequate water treatment and poor
sanitation." The reason for this outbreak is
clearly stated again. "The main causes of
infectious diseases, particularly diarrhea,
dysentery, and upper respiratory problems,
are poor sanitation and unclean water. These
diseases primarily afflict the old and young
children."
The fifth document, "Health Conditions in Iraq,
June 1991," is still heavily censored. All I can
make out is that the DIA sent a source "to assess
health conditions and determine the most critical
medical needs of Iraq. Source observed that Iraqi
medical system was in considerable disarray,
medical facilities had been extensively looted,
and almost all medicines were in critically short
supply."
In one refugee camp, the document says, "at least
80 percent of the population" has diarrhea. At
this same camp, named Cukurca, "cholera,
hepatitis type B, and measles have broken out.
"The protein deficiency disease kwashiorkor
was observed in Iraq "for the first time,"
the document adds. "Gastroenteritis was killing
children. . . . In the south, 80 percent of
the deaths were children (with the exception
of Al Amarah, where 60 percent of deaths were
children)."
The final document is "Iraq: Assessment of Current
Health Threats and Capabilities," and it is dated
November 15, 1991. This one has a distinct
damage-control feel to it. Here is how it begins:
"Restoration of Iraq's public health services and
shortages of major medical materiel remain
dominant international concerns. Both issues
apparently are being exploited by Saddam Hussein
in an effort to keep public opinion firmly
against the U.S. and its Coalition allies and
to direct blame away from the Iraqi government."
It minimizes the extent of the damage. "Although
current countrywide infectious disease incidence
in Iraq is higher than it was before the Gulf
War, it is not at the catastrophic levels that
some groups predicted. The Iraqi regime will
continue to exploit disease incidence data for
its own political purposes." And it places the
blame squarely on Saddam Hussein. "Iraq's
medical supply shortages are the result of the
central government's stockpiling, selective
distribution, and exploitation of domestic and
international relief medical resources." It adds:
"Resumption of public health programs . . .
depends completely on the Iraqi government."
As these documents illustrate, the United States
knew sanctions had the capacity to devastate the
water treatment system of Iraq. It knew what
the consequences would be: increased outbreaks
of disease and high rates of child mortality. And
it was more concerned about the public relations
nightmare for Washington than the actual
nightmare that the sanctions created for
innocent Iraqis.
The Geneva Convention is absolutely clear. In a
1979 protocol relating to the "protection of
victims of international armed conflicts,"
Article 54, it states: "It is prohibited to
attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects
indispensable to the survival of the civilian
population, such as foodstuffs, crops, livestock,
drinking water installations and supplies, and
irrigation works, for the specific purpose of
denying them for their sustenance value to the
civilian population or to the adverse Party,
whatever the motive, whether in order to starve
out civilians, to cause them to move away, or
for any other motive."
But that is precisely what the U.S. government
did, with malice aforethought. It "destroyed,
removed, or rendered useless" Iraq's "drinking
water installations and supplies." The sanctions,
imposed for a decade largely at the insistence of
the United States, constitute a violation of the
Geneva Convention. They amount to a systematic
effort to, in the DIA's own words, "fully
degrade" Iraq's water sources.
At a House hearing on June 7, Representative
Cynthia McKinney, Democrat of Georgia, referred
to the document "Iraq Water Treatment
Vulnerabilities" and said: "Attacking the Iraqi
public drinking water supply flagrantly targets
civilians and is a violation of the Geneva
Convention and of the fundamental laws of
civilized nations."
Over the last decade, Washington extended the toll
by continuing to withhold approval for Iraq to
import the few chemicals and items of equipment
it needed in order to clean up its water supply.
Last summer, Representative Tony Hall, Democrat of
Ohio, wrote to then-Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright "about the profound effects of the
increasing deterioration of Iraq's water supply
and sanitation systems on its children's health."
Hall wrote, "The prime killer of children under
five years of age--diarrheal diseases--has
reached epidemic proportions, and they now strike
four times more often than they did in 1990. . . .
Holds on contracts for the water and sanitation
sector are a prime reason for the increases in
sickness and death. Of the eighteen contracts,
all but one hold was placed by the U.S.
government. The contracts are for purification
chemicals, chlorinators, chemical dosing pumps,
water tankers, and other equipment. . . . I urge
you to weigh your decision against the disease
and death that are the unavoidable result of not
having safe drinking water and minimum levels
of sanitation. "For more than ten years, the
United States has deliberately pursued a policy of
destroying the water treatment system of Iraq,
knowing full well the cost in Iraqi lives. The
United Nations has estimated that more than
500,000 Iraqi children have died as a result of
sanctions, and that 5,000 Iraqi children continue
to die every month for this reason. No one can
say that the United States didn't know
what it was doing.
See for Yourself All the DIA documents mentioned
in this article were found at the Department of
Defense's Gulflink site.
To read or print documents:
1.go to www.gulflink.osd.mil
2.click on "Declassified Documents" on the left
side of the front page
3.the next page is entitled "Browse Recently
Declassified Documents"
4.click on "search" under "Declassifed Documents"
on the left side of that page
5.the next page is entitled "Search Recently
Declassified Documents"
6.enter search terms such as "disease information
effects of bombing"
7.click on the search button
8.the next page is entitled "Data Sources"
9.click on DIA
10.click on one of the titles
Its not the best-organized site on the Internet,
but I have found the folks at Gulflink to be
helpful and responsive.
Thomas J. Nagy
Thomas J. Nagy teaches at the School of Business
and Public Management at George Washington
University.

That the architects of that policy felt that the

deaths of all those people was worth the price is a legitimate target
for criticism.

the UN retracted its report on the effects of the sanctions when it
was revealed the figures came from

the iraqi health ministry.

--
To delight in war is a merit in the soldier, a dangerous
quality in the captain and a positive crime in a statesman.
- George Santayana
Cheerful Charlie
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far	10 Feb 2006 09:09:00 PM

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 21:01:54 -0600, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:

wf3h@comcast.net wrote:

On 9 Feb 2006 15:17:06 -0800, "Noone Inparticular"
<unreve89@hotmail.com> wrote:

except, of course, that the policies didn't kill anyone. hussein did.

No, the USA did. Bush bombed the water systems,
the sewer systems, teh dams.
Not Saddam. The uS cut off supplies to the water systems of Iraq,
knowing full well mass epidemics
would follow.

except mass epidemics didn't follow. we didn't bomb dams. there was
no flooding.

The US did this, not Saddam.

It was US Secretary of State Albright who admitted
that this was a price in innocent life the US was willing to pay.

again, where are you getting the figures about the dead? from the
iraqi health ministry? because the UN pulled the report after it
admitted that's where it got the figures.

We did it, not Saddam.

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We
have heard that a half million children have died.
I mean, that's more children than died in
Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think
this is a very hard choice, but the price--we
think the price is worth it.

--60 Minutes (5/12/96)

again, the figures are wrong. you can repeat them 500 times. that
merely means you're wrong 500 times.

Over the last two years, I've discovered documents
of the Defense Intelligence Agency proving beyond
a doubt that, contrary to the Geneva Convention,
the U.S. government intentionally used sanctions
against Iraq to degrade thecountry's water supply
after the Gulf War. The United States knew the
cost that civilian Iraqis, mostly children, would
pay, and it went ahead anyway.

gee. you're a one man investigative service
who knew?
This could lead to

increased incidences, if not epidemics, of
disease."

ROFLMAO!!! and where are the epidemics? you're admitting ex post facto
that you're wrong.

The document proceeds to itemize the likely
outbreaks. It mentions "acute diarrhea" brought
on by bacteria such as E. coli, shigella

and they never happened.
imagine....

At a House hearing on June 7, Representative
Cynthia McKinney, Democrat of Georgia, referred
to the document "Iraq Water Treatment
Vulnerabilities" and said: "Attacking the Iraqi
public drinking water supply flagrantly targets
civilians and is a violation of the Geneva
Convention and of the fundamental laws of
civilized nations."

?? cynthia mckinney? the women who lied every single time she opened
her mouth? you're relying on HER as a source??

Over the last decade, Washington extended the toll
by continuing to withhold approval for Iraq to
import the few chemicals and items of equipment
it needed in order to clean up its water supply.
Last summer, Representative Tony Hall, Democrat of
Ohio, wrote to then-Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright "about the profound effects of the
increasing deterioration of Iraq's water supply
and sanitation systems on its children's health."
Hall wrote, "The prime killer of children under
five years of age--diarrheal diseases--has
reached epidemic proportions

ah. a politiican who had no better information than you do, writing
about diseases and epidemics that even you admit never happened, using
a report that the UN retracted
you're batting 1000...
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far	07 Feb 2006 10:48:14 PM

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 19:33:12 -0600,

wrote:
- Refer: <1lfqu1lq027p5t95gqsrkjju2r8ifiut8r@4ax.com>

On 9 Feb 2006 15:17:06 -0800, "Noone Inparticular"
<unreve89@hotmail.com> wrote:

except, of course, that the policies didn't kill anyone. hussein did.

With US and UK support.

That the architects of that policy felt that the

deaths of all those people was worth the price is a legitimate target
for criticism.

the UN retracted its report on the effects of the sanctions when it
was revealed the figures came from

the iraqi health ministry.

User: "Ye Old One"
Title: Re: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far	08 Feb 2006 05:18:17 AM

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 00:24:33 -0500, Olrik <olrik666@yahoo_BACON!_.com>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

Ye Old One wrote:

On 7 Feb 2006 11:03:05 -0800, "Noone Inparticular"
<unreve89@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

Ye Old One wrote:
<snips>

Wrong. Saddam killed over 600,000 of his own citizens.

Cite? I've heard numerous estimates (many not different than this) but
haven't seen a cite for any. Got one?

Thnx.

I used to have several, but most of those don't work anymore. But I
did find one for you.

http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=2400&msp=1242

Quote from the article : "Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in
Saddam's needless war with Iran."

you missed "The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has
compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq."

So whatever we may think about the Iran/Iraq war (it was futile,
certainly), a war is not the same thing as "Saddam killed over 600,000
of his own citizens." when that figure includes a war.

It would be like saying that "Bush killed over 2,000 of his own
citizens." while waging war againt Iraq.

--
Bob.
.

User: "Noone Inparticular"
Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far	09 Feb 2006 12:08:09 PM

Ye Old One wrote:

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 00:24:33 -0500, Olrik <olrik666@yahoo_BACON!_.com>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

Ye Old One wrote:

On 7 Feb 2006 11:03:05 -0800, "Noone Inparticular"
<unreve89@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

Ye Old One wrote:
<snips>

Wrong. Saddam killed over 600,000 of his own citizens.

Cite? I've heard numerous estimates (many not different than this) but
haven't seen a cite for any. Got one?

Thnx.

I used to have several, but most of those don't work anymore. But I
did find one for you.

http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=2400&msp=1242

Quote from the article : "Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in
Saddam's needless war with Iran."

you missed "The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has
compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq."

Thanks for the citation, such as it is. What you gave me is the same
sort of thing I've seen before (I do appreciate your efforts, though.
Really).
But this is not really a good citation; it is news report. Googling on
"Documental Centre for Human Rights" yields almost exclusively the very
quote you reproduce above almost all from right wing web sites or
blogs. Suggests to me the very kind of crap we see creationists do;
taking any sort of comment they think supports their position,
irrespective of and without checking its accuracy, and propagating it
via fellow travellers.
I can find no other citation for this group in this context. So I am
skeptical of this claim. Not because I think Sadam Hussein might not
have done that (far from it) but these kinds of things are fraught with
the excesses that come from political agendas. I'd like to know from
reputable sources what the best estimates are. You know of any other
group, right left or center, that has made comparable claims?

--
Bob.

User: "wbarwell"
Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far	09 Feb 2006 03:40:44 PM

Noone Inparticular wrote:

Ye Old One wrote:

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 00:24:33 -0500, Olrik <olrik666@yahoo_BACON!_.com>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

Ye Old One wrote:

On 7 Feb 2006 11:03:05 -0800, "Noone Inparticular"
<unreve89@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

Ye Old One wrote:
<snips>

Wrong. Saddam killed over 600,000 of his own citizens.

Cite? I've heard numerous estimates (many not different than this)
but haven't seen a cite for any. Got one?

Thnx.

I used to have several, but most of those don't work anymore. But I
did find one for you.

http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=2400&msp=1242

Quote from the article : "Another 500,000 are estimated to have died
in Saddam's needless war with Iran."

you missed "The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has
compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq."

Thanks for the citation, such as it is. What you gave me is the same
sort of thing I've seen before (I do appreciate your efforts, though.
Really).

But this is not really a good citation; it is news report. Googling on
"Documental Centre for Human Rights" yields almost exclusively the very
quote you reproduce above almost all from right wing web sites or
blogs. Suggests to me the very kind of crap we see creationists do;
taking any sort of comment they think supports their position,
irrespective of and without checking its accuracy, and propagating it
via fellow travellers.

I can find no other citation for this group in this context. So I am
skeptical of this claim. Not because I think Sadam Hussein might not
have done that (far from it) but these kinds of things are fraught with
the excesses that come from political agendas. I'd like to know from
reputable sources what the best estimates are. You know of any other
group, right left or center, that has made comparable claims?

I suspect that Amnesty International and Middle East Watch
would be good places to start.
Saddam most certainly did murder people. Bush Daddy cut a deal to
support Kurdish uprisings and then cut a deal with Saddam to halt if
Saddam would cut support for terrorist organizations in Israel.
Saddam did so and Bush pulled the rug out from under them.
Bush did the same with the Shiites. In both cases Saddam did kill
thousands, but nowhere near 500,000. Earlier, his wrath was
for specific targets not entire masses of people. Political
opponents, a few radical orgnizations bent on overthrowing him,
and such. The war took a deep toll on the Iraqi peoples.
Saddam takes the blame for starting that war. But it is not
the same as purposeful genocide which the ranting rightards
would have us believe.
There is a book, America in the Age of Genocide - a Problem
from Hell by Samantha Powers that goes into these things in
some detail, and often there just are not hard numbers.
Who can say exactly how many Kurdish villagers died in
his attacks? 5,000, 10,000? Or how many Shiites died
at the hand of the Iraqi army in third failed uprising.
This is where the majority of Saddam's real mass murders
came out of.
The Rightards do the same with Mao. Mao was a thug and a
murdering one as well, but most dead Chinese died in the
massive famines of the early 60's which were exacerbated
by his stupid Great Leap Forward program. To listen to
them you'd think Mao lined up 30 million people against a
wall and machine gunned them, no, it was not purposeful
mass murder.
After 50 years of war, from the warlord era to the Kuomatong
and the Japanese rape of China, China was in such poor
condition no matter who ruled China, the famines of the 60's
were indeed going to kill millions. This does not excuse Mao
for what he is responsible for, but that does not excuse the
rightards who care more about agitprop than reasoned debate.
Their boys the Kuomotong were just as bad as the communists
and killed millions when the Communist fortunes were
low, just before the Japanese occupation.
For 100 years, no matter who ruled, there was brutality and
mass murder. Its amazing that today, China is coming out
of all that.
The history of China is the saddest, most brutal,
unfathomable, horrifying all nations in the 19th
-mid 20th century.

So whatever we may think about the Iran/Iraq war (it was futile,
certainly), a war is not the same thing as "Saddam killed over
600,000 of his own citizens." when that figure includes a war.

It would be like saying that "Bush killed over 2,000 of his own
citizens." while waging war againt Iraq.

--
Bob.

--
To delight in war is a merit in the soldier, a dangerous
quality in the captain and a positive crime in a statesman.
- George Santayana
Cheerful Charlie
.

User: "Bobby D. Bryant"
Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far	09 Feb 2006 12:27:07 PM

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, "Noone Inparticular" <unreve89@hotmail.com> wrote:

Ye Old One wrote:

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 00:24:33 -0500, Olrik <olrik666@yahoo_BACON!_.com>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

Ye Old One wrote:

On 7 Feb 2006 11:03:05 -0800, "Noone Inparticular"
<unreve89@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

Ye Old One wrote:
<snips>

Wrong. Saddam killed over 600,000 of his own citizens.

Cite? I've heard numerous estimates (many not different than this) but
haven't seen a cite for any. Got one?

Thnx.

I used to have several, but most of those don't work anymore. But I
did find one for you.

http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=2400&msp=1242

Quote from the article : "Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in
Saddam's needless war with Iran."

you missed "The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has
compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq."

Thanks for the citation, such as it is. What you gave me is the same
sort of thing I've seen before (I do appreciate your efforts, though.
Really).

But this is not really a good citation; it is news report. Googling on
"Documental Centre for Human Rights" yields almost exclusively the very
quote you reproduce above almost all from right wing web sites or
blogs. Suggests to me the very kind of crap we see creationists do;
taking any sort of comment they think supports their position,
irrespective of and without checking its accuracy, and propagating it
via fellow travellers.

I can find no other citation for this group in this context. So I am
skeptical of this claim. Not because I think Sadam Hussein might not
have done that (far from it) but these kinds of things are fraught with
the excesses that come from political agendas. I'd like to know from
reputable sources what the best estimates are. You know of any other
group, right left or center, that has made comparable claims?

I can't give any sources because it has been a year or more since I
read up on it, but IIRC a pretty good case can be made for:
1) Killed several tens of thousands of Kurds over the years.
2) Land-grab (revanchism, under his view that he represents the
continuation of the Ottoman empire) started a war that resulted in
est. 900,000 casualties, mostly Iranian.
3) Killed est. 250,000 Shiites repressing and retaliating for the
uprising after GW I.
4) Killed unknown number of political prisoners over the years.
I suspect we can safely say that he has personally been responsible
for at least 1,250,000 deaths during his rule.
And that might be low. Wikipedia says 400,000 bodies have been found
in mass graves in Iraq, which could not be explained by the above
unless for some reason Iranian combat fatalities were buried in Iraq
and included in the count. (However, I don't know the source of the
Wikipedia claim, and I don't recall ever hearing that number before.)
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.

User: "Noone Inparticular"
Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far	09 Feb 2006 12:42:33 PM

Bobby D. Bryant wrote:

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, "Noone Inparticular" <unreve89@hotmail.com> wrote:

Ye Old One wrote:

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 00:24:33 -0500, Olrik <olrik666@yahoo_BACON!_.com>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

Ye Old One wrote:

On 7 Feb 2006 11:03:05 -0800, "Noone Inparticular"
<unreve89@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

Ye Old One wrote:
<snips>

Wrong. Saddam killed over 600,000 of his own citizens.

Cite? I've heard numerous estimates (many not different than this) but
haven't seen a cite for any. Got one?

Thnx.

I used to have several, but most of those don't work anymore. But I
did find one for you.

http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=2400&msp=1242

Quote from the article : "Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in
Saddam's needless war with Iran."

you missed "The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has
compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq."

Thanks for the citation, such as it is. What you gave me is the same
sort of thing I've seen before (I do appreciate your efforts, though.
Really).

But this is not really a good citation; it is news report. Googling on
"Documental Centre for Human Rights" yields almost exclusively the very
quote you reproduce above almost all from right wing web sites or
blogs. Suggests to me the very kind of crap we see creationists do;
taking any sort of comment they think supports their position,
irrespective of and without checking its accuracy, and propagating it
via fellow travellers.

I can find no other citation for this group in this context. So I am
skeptical of this claim. Not because I think Sadam Hussein might not
have done that (far from it) but these kinds of things are fraught with
the excesses that come from political agendas. I'd like to know from
reputable sources what the best estimates are. You know of any other
group, right left or center, that has made comparable claims?

I can't give any sources because it has been a year or more since I
read up on it, but IIRC a pretty good case can be made for:

Thanks, Bobby. I think I should state here that I have no doubt that
Sadam was directly responsible for a great many deaths. There are lots
of numbers flying around, and I'm looking for some that have the
backing of reputable sources.

1) Killed several tens of thousands of Kurds over the years.

Yes, some by gassing.

2) Land-grab (revanchism, under his view that he represents the
continuation of the Ottoman empire) started a war that resulted in
est. 900,000 casualties, mostly Iranian.

Iranians of course, are not his "own people".

3) Killed est. 250,000 Shiites repressing and retaliating for the
uprising after GW I.

Yep. We pulled the rug out from under them and stood by while he
butchered them.

4) Killed unknown number of political prisoners over the years.

I suspect we can safely say that he has personally been responsible
for at least 1,250,000 deaths during his rule.

And that might be low. Wikipedia says 400,000 bodies have been found
in mass graves in Iraq, which could not be explained by the above
unless for some reason Iranian combat fatalities were buried in Iraq
and included in the count. (However, I don't know the source of the
Wikipedia claim, and I don't recall ever hearing that number before.)

Thanks.

--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

User: "Matt Silberstein"
Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far	09 Feb 2006 01:47:07 PM

On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 18:27:07 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins ,
bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) in
<dsg1hq$5an$1@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, "Noone Inparticular" <unreve89@hotmail.com> wrote:

Ye Old One wrote:

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 00:24:33 -0500, Olrik <olrik666@yahoo_BACON!_.com>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

Ye Old One wrote:

On 7 Feb 2006 11:03:05 -0800, "Noone Inparticular"
<unreve89@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

Ye Old One wrote:
<snips>

Wrong. Saddam killed over 600,000 of his own citizens.

Cite? I've heard numerous estimates (many not different than this) but
haven't seen a cite for any. Got one?

Thnx.

I used to have several, but most of those don't work anymore. But I
did find one for you.

http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=2400&msp=1242

Quote from the article : "Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in
Saddam's needless war with Iran."

you missed "The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has
compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq."

Thanks for the citation, such as it is. What you gave me is the same
sort of thing I've seen before (I do appreciate your efforts, though.
Really).

But this is not really a good citation; it is news report. Googling on
"Documental Centre for Human Rights" yields almost exclusively the very
quote you reproduce above almost all from right wing web sites or
blogs. Suggests to me the very kind of crap we see creationists do;
taking any sort of comment they think supports their position,
irrespective of and without checking its accuracy, and propagating it
via fellow travellers.

I can find no other citation for this group in this context. So I am
skeptical of this claim. Not because I think Sadam Hussein might not
have done that (far from it) but these kinds of things are fraught with
the excesses that come from political agendas. I'd like to know from
reputable sources what the best estimates are. You know of any other
group, right left or center, that has made comparable claims?

Do you put the 250,000 post GWI deaths on the U.S.? After all, we told
them to revolt and then sat by and did nothing.

And that might be low. Wikipedia says 400,000 bodies have been found
in mass graves in Iraq, which could not be explained by the above
unless for some reason Iranian combat fatalities were buried in Iraq
and included in the count. (However, I don't know the source of the
Wikipedia claim, and I don't recall ever hearing that number before.)

--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.

User: "Bobby D. Bryant"
Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far	09 Feb 2006 02:49:52 PM

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 18:27:07 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins ,
bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) in
<dsg1hq$5an$1@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, "Noone Inparticular" <unreve89@hotmail.com> wrote:

Ye Old One wrote:

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 00:24:33 -0500, Olrik <olrik666@yahoo_BACON!_.com>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

Ye Old One wrote:

On 7 Feb 2006 11:03:05 -0800, "Noone Inparticular"
<unreve89@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

Ye Old One wrote:
<snips>

Wrong. Saddam killed over 600,000 of his own citizens.

Cite? I've heard numerous estimates (many not different than this) but
haven't seen a cite for any. Got one?

Thnx.

I used to have several, but most of those don't work anymore. But I
did find one for you.

http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=2400&msp=1242

Quote from the article : "Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in
Saddam's needless war with Iran."

you missed "The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has
compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq."

Thanks for the citation, such as it is. What you gave me is the same
sort of thing I've seen before (I do appreciate your efforts, though.
Really).

But this is not really a good citation; it is news report. Googling on
"Documental Centre for Human Rights" yields almost exclusively the very
quote you reproduce above almost all from right wing web sites or
blogs. Suggests to me the very kind of crap we see creationists do;
taking any sort of comment they think supports their position,
irrespective of and without checking its accuracy, and propagating it
via fellow travellers.

I can find no other citation for this group in this context. So I am
skeptical of this claim. Not because I think Sadam Hussein might not
have done that (far from it) but these kinds of things are fraught with
the excesses that come from political agendas. I'd like to know from
reputable sources what the best estimates are. You know of any other
group, right left or center, that has made comparable claims?

Do you put the 250,000 post GWI deaths on the U.S.? After all, we told
them to revolt and then sat by and did nothing.

I do feel like that makes us culpable. (And I use the term 'us' very
loosely.) That sort of behaviour is IMO inexcusable.
However, whatever degree of culpability we might share does not IMO
reduce Saddam's responsibility; I don't consider blame to be a zero-
sum game. And as I understand the thread to be about whether he was a
murderous tyrant, I didn't see any need to mention who else might bear
any degree of responsibility for what went on in Iraq under his rule.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.

User: "Bobby D. Bryant"
Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far	08 Feb 2006 12:05:00 AM

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006, Olrik <olrik666@yahoo_BACON!_.com> wrote:

Ye Old One wrote:

On 7 Feb 2006 11:03:05 -0800, "Noone Inparticular"
<unreve89@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

Ye Old One wrote:
<snips>

Wrong. Saddam killed over 600,000 of his own citizens.

Cite? I've heard numerous estimates (many not different than this) but
haven't seen a cite for any. Got one?

I used to have several, but most of those don't work anymore. But I
did find one for you.

http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=2400&msp=1242

Quote from the article : "Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in
Saddam's needless war with Iran."

So whatever we may think about the Iran/Iraq war (it was futile,
certainly), a war is not the same thing as "Saddam killed over 600,000
of his own citizens." when that figure includes a war.

It would be like saying that "Bush killed over 2,000 of his own
citizens." while waging war againt Iraq.

IMO that would be a perfectly reasonable thing to say about a leader
who starts a gratuitous war, whether it be Bush or Hussein... or a
certain other person whose name cannot be mentioned without bringing
down the Wrath of Godwin.
However, it's not clear that YOO's claim of 600K included any war
casualties.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.

User: "olrik666"
Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far	08 Feb 2006 12:47:33 AM

Bobby D. Bryant wrote:

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006, Olrik <olrik666@yahoo_BACON!_.com> wrote:

Ye Old One wrote:

On 7 Feb 2006 11:03:05 -0800, "Noone Inparticular"
<unreve89@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

Ye Old One wrote:
<snips>

Wrong. Saddam killed over 600,000 of his own citizens.

Cite? I've heard numerous estimates (many not different than this) but
haven't seen a cite for any. Got one?

I used to have several, but most of those don't work anymore. But I
did find one for you.

http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=2400&msp=1242

You mean Lither? Relith?
;-)

However, it's not clear that YOO's claim of 600K included any war
casualties.
From the link he posted :

http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=2400&msp=1242
Olrik
(alt.atheism)

--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

User: ""
Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far	07 Feb 2006 02:08:16 PM

Ye Old One wrote:

On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 09:43:19 -0500, "Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

"Khubla" <khubla@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:H6OdnfHQqfi59nXeRVn-rQ@adelphia.com...

IRAQ'S CIVIL WAR HAS COST $3,000 PER U.S. FAMILY-- SO FAR - LINK - God
forbid critics of the war on Iraq should compare it with the war in
Vietnam. But perhaps it is worth mentioning that the liberation of Iraq is
now costing more each month than the preservation of the Republic of South
Vietnam did more than 30 years ago.

A careful study by two Economics professors indicated the actual cost of the
Iraq war to date is approximately one trillion dollars which works out to

You have to be kidding.

over
$5,000 per working man and women in the U. S.. In addition it has cost over
2200 American lives plus 15,000 seriously wounded and many permanently
handicapped.

Iraqis are also people and human, and it is estimated that between 30,000
and 50,000 have been killed and an unknown number seriously and permanently
wounded and handicapped. In addition much of the infrastructure of the
country has been destroyed

This is worse than Saddam accomplished in his 30 years in charge.

Wrong. Saddam killed over 600,000 of his own citizens.

At an average of about 20,000 per year. Roughly the same rate that
Iraqis are dying violent deaths under the current regime.

--
Bob.

User: "Andres64"
Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far	08 Feb 2006 02:19:34 PM

DUMMERSTON, Vt. - The butcher's bill, the ever-expanding human and
economic cost of the Iraq war, grows with each passing week.
The human cost keeps increasing. Nearly 2,300 U.S. soldiers have been
killed and more than 16,000 have been seriously wounded.
The economic cost keeps increasing too. The war in Iraq is estimated to
cost the United States about $100,000 a minute, or nearly $200 million
a day.
But the bill will ulitmately be much worse.
According to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stieglitz of Columbia
University and Linda Biomes, who teaches management at Harvard's
Kennedy School of Government, the ultimate cost of the Iraq war could
go as high as $2 trillion.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_randolph_060208_bush_refuses_to_conf.htm
.

User: "J. J. Lodder"
Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far	07 Feb 2006 04:24:59 PM

Khubla <khubla@adelphia.net> wrote:

IRAQ'S CIVIL WAR HAS COST $3,000 PER U.S. FAMILY-- SO FAR

It didn't cost US families that,
for they haven't paid, yet.
The US borrowed most of it abroad.
American families won't notice
until the next crash of the dollar,
Jan
.

User: "VoiceOfReason"
Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far	07 Feb 2006 06:41:38 PM

Khubla wrote:

I want a refund.
.

User: "maff"
Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far	07 Feb 2006 07:03:50 PM

Khubla wrote:

Iraq war could cost US over $2 trillion, says Nobel prize-winning
economist
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1681078,00.html
� Economists say official estimates are far too low
� New calculation takes in dead and injured soldiers
.

User: "Ye Old One"
Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far	07 Feb 2006 07:33:08 AM

On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 04:41:03 -0500, "Khubla" <khubla@adelphia.net>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

Care to explain how that figure is arrived at?
--
Bob.
.

User: "Dr. Zarkov"
Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far	07 Feb 2006 08:42:05 AM

Ye Old One wrote:

"Khubla" <khubla@adelphia.net> wrote:

Care to explain how that figure is arrived at?

I don't know how he got the cost per family, but if you divide the
current estimate of the amount already spent on the Iraq war, $240 billion
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
by the approximate current U.S. population, you get about $825 per person.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far	07 Feb 2006 10:15:52 AM

Dr. Zarkov wrote:

I don't know how he got the cost per family, but if you divide the
current estimate of the amount already spent on the Iraq war, $240 billion
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

by the approximate current U.S. population, you get about $825 per person.

To get the full number you have to assume long term care for the
wounded, and that the military will rebuild its infrastructure {Tanks,
trucks, humvees, jets} and restock its weapons stores {Bullets, mortor
rounds, bombs, mistles,...} to where we were before getting started in
the war.
The estimates range from a low of 1 trillion to a high of 2 trillion.
And we could have insured social security would have been undiminushed
over the baby boom retirement years for a small fraction of what this
amount of money.
.

User: "CreateThis"
Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far	07 Feb 2006 01:53:33 PM

wrote:

Dr. Zarkov wrote:

I don't know how he got the cost per family, but if you divide the
current estimate of the amount already spent on the Iraq war, $240 billion
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

by the approximate current U.S. population, you get about $825 per person.

To get the full number you have to assume long term care for the
wounded, and that the military will rebuild its infrastructure {Tanks,
trucks, humvees, jets} and restock its weapons stores {Bullets, mortor
rounds, bombs, mistles,...} to where we were before getting started in
the war.

The estimates range from a low of 1 trillion to a high of 2 trillion.
And we could have insured social security would have been undiminushed
over the baby boom retirement years for a small fraction of what this
amount of money.

Yeah, but that wouldn't have made as many Texans rich.
CT
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far	07 Feb 2006 09:33:00 PM

On 7 Feb 2006 08:15:52 -0800,

wrote:

Dr. Zarkov wrote:

and what was the total cost of 9/11? something like 150B? if hussein
had developed nukes....
.

User: "Ken Shackleton"
Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far	07 Feb 2006 09:45:04 PM

wrote:

On 7 Feb 2006 08:15:52 -0800,

wrote:

Dr. Zarkov wrote:

and what was the total cost of 9/11? something like 150B? if hussein
had developed nukes....

But he didn't....and the Americans new that he didn't....but they
invaded anyway. Hussein had zero to do with 9/11. The invasion of
Afghanistan was the right thing to do.....unfortunately....the US
dropped the ball there....to few news-bites I guess for Shrub's liking.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far	07 Feb 2006 11:02:20 PM

On 7 Feb 2006 19:45:04 -0800, "Ken Shackleton"
<ken.shackleton@shaw.ca> wrote:

w...@comcast.net wrote:

On 7 Feb 2006 08:15:52 -0800,

wrote:

Dr. Zarkov wrote:

and what was the total cost of 9/11? something like 150B? if hussein
had developed nukes....

But he didn't.

he sure did have a nuke program in the 90's.

..and the Americans new that he didn't...

well, gee....the french sure thought he did...
...but they

invaded anyway. Hussein had zero to do with 9/11

you know, some day you fundies are gonna wake up and realize the
middle east situation is alot more fluid than your tired mantras are
capable of perceiving.
... The invasion of

Afghanistan was the right thing to do.....unfortunately....the US
dropped the ball there....to few news-bites I guess for Shrub's liking.

yeah. it's a functioning democracy.oh. i forgot. you deny the US has
ever let any country it's invaded actually develop as a functioning
democracy
my apologies to the french, germans and japanese
.

User: "Bobby D. Bryant"
Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far	07 Feb 2006 11:28:32 PM

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006, "Ken Shackleton" <ken.shackleton@shaw.ca> wrote:

w...@comcast.net wrote:

On 7 Feb 2006 08:15:52 -0800,

wrote:

Dr. Zarkov wrote:

and what was the total cost of 9/11? something like 150B? if hussein
had developed nukes....

Apparently things have been getting worse (monotonically) in Afghanistan
for the past year or year and a half.
We're still going to reduce the troops there, though.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.

User: "John Wilkins"
Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far	08 Feb 2006 12:58:20 AM

Bobby D. Bryant wrote:

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006, "Ken Shackleton" <ken.shackleton@shaw.ca> wrote:

w...@comcast.net wrote:

On 7 Feb 2006 08:15:52 -0800,

wrote:

Dr. Zarkov wrote:

and what was the total cost of 9/11? something like 150B? if hussein
had developed nukes....

Apparently things have been getting worse (monotonically) in Afghanistan
for the past year or year and a half.

We're still going to reduce the troops there, though.

Leaving other nations to cope with the mess. My nephew is there, as part of
the Australian Army contingent.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
Servum tui ero, ipse vespera
.

User: "Bobby D. Bryant"
Title: Re: Iraq war has cost $3,000 per U.S. Family....so far	07 Feb 2006 11:01:50 AM

On Tue, 07 Feb 2006,

wrote:

Dr. Zarkov wrote:

I don't know how he got the cost per family, but if you divide the
current estimate of the amount already spent on the Iraq war, $240 billion
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

by the approximate current U.S. population, you get about $825 per person.

Also, IIRC, the direct cost is closer to $400 billion, including this
year's request (which IIRC Congress hasn't approved yet, but surely will).

The estimates range from a low of 1 trillion to a high of 2 trillion.
And we could have insured social security would have been undiminushed
over the baby boom retirement years for a small fraction of what this
amount of money.

Yes, but that would work against Bush's agenda to re-route Social Security
money to the stock market.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.

Page 3 of 4

Post reply

It is time for the Democratic party and all its lies and corruption to be banished from this country. Hillary Clinton has certainly gone too far this time while speaking at a CHURCH about politics, hey Democraps what happened to the "seperation of ch
Re: Today's Founder Quote: How far the Judiciary has come to annoy the Constitution by its lack of 'seperaton'
Re: Today's Founder Quote: How far the Judiciary has come to annoy the Constitution by its lack of 'seperaton'
Another show of how far Iraq has come -- it is afraid to run its own prisons!!!
Re: How Far Has America Progressed Toward Its Inevitable Implosion?