Offering a view of the rising toll of war dead

[steven]

There are no flashy graphics on these signs. They're simple, almost crude, drawn with black or blue marker on pieces of white copy paper.
Joyce G. Evans just wants to tell neighbors and passers-by the blunt, unvarnished truth - about how many U.S. soldiers have lost their lives in the Iraq War.

On a recent afternoon, four signs could be seen in the window of her Lexington Avenue home on Buffalo's near West Side, between Delaware and Elmwood avenues:


"American Soldiers"

"Dead in Iraq

"1,821.

"End This Mess."


Within a few days, that count would rise to 1,828.
Evans, a 64-year-old artist and retired teacher, is outraged by more than just the number of war dead in Iraq. She's also upset by what she considers the apathy over the casualties of war.

"I want people to be aware of it," she said of the increasing death toll. "People don't seem to be upset. There aren't the marches and protests like there were in Vietnam. People just don't seem to be bothered."

So every time Evans learns about more American soldiers being killed, she changes the number in the window.

"I had to change the count three times yesterday," she said sadly.

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20050808/1067443.asp

[Boost Buffalo]

she would be much busier if she tracked all the senseless highway deaths of over 40000 Americans every year with almost half by drunks, or if she tracked the two hundred thousand women dead by cigarettes every single year. Talk about wasted lives.

But she chose to track the 1828 deaths in two and a half years by our brave warriors who volunteered to protect our country and serve a real purpose, an honorable purpose in the name of America.

good for her...

[Linda_D]

originally posted by Boost Buffalo
she would be much busier if she tracked all the senseless highway deaths of over 40000 Americans every year with almost half by drunks, or if she tracked the two hundred thousand women dead by cigarettes every single year. Talk about wasted lives.

But she chose to track the 1828 deaths in two and a half years by our brave warriors who volunteered to protect our country and serve a real purpose, an honorable purpose in the name of America.

good for her...

Boostie, since you like to "talk the talk", how 'bout "walkin' the walk"? Why don't you volunteer to take the place of one of the "brave volunteers" who's been there for over a year???

1838 American soldiers have died in the Iraq War as of 8/9/2005, including 78 in June, 54 in July, and 39 in August -- Grim Numbers (http://icasualties.org/oif/)

[avet]

our brave warriors who volunteered to protect our country and serve a real purpose, an honorable purpose in the name of America.
CHASING, HARRASSING, & TARGETING DISADVANTAGED KIDS WITH MONEY & VIDEO GAMES - almost sounds like the description of a...."pedophile".
_______________________________________________

" If they join, they do their...patriotic duty*, even go to college. "
_______________________________________________

(*) only applies to "poor" kids from "poor families".IT DOES NOT apply to any "rich kids" - their "PATRIOTISM" is " NEVER QUESTIONED" IN ANY WAY .


________________________________________________

The Pentagon is now hitting on young boys and girls. Channel 13 News Hour (12/13/04) documented desperate military recruiters, out in full force, in high schools, luring young 17-18-19 year olds to join the military.
The benefits? 'Blow-up things, drive cool vehicles, and travel'! An additional $15,000 for each recruit, if they joined (the new mercenary army). Kids are told 'the US is a nation at war'. If they join, they do their patriotic duty, even go to college.
Some kids, potential recruits, are CALLED AT HOME, MORE THAN ONCE. Afghanistan or Iraq are NOT MENTIONED. Video games are brought to the schools, so these kids could get a taste of 'real' war games, shooting planes or hitting targets, the usual 'dot hitting dot' seen in video games. They could be heroes, for their country. Dead heroes?
Not mentioned. If they are 'lucky' to return home with legs or arms amputated or scarred psychologically for life, they might even envy the dead. If a high school authority does not allow recruiters with their trucks, trailers, and video games to visit these school recruiting sites, federal funds for these high schools are cut off.

These kids are from poor families, white, ethnics, Latinos, African-Americans. No money, no connections, no future.
To the White House and their champions (Republicans, corporate-owned media, and right-wing religious fundamentalists (mostly men), these kids are doing God's work, killing others.

The fate of veterans in civilian life? A big chunk of the military appropriations ($2.5 trillion for 2006-2011) is for new weapons and to recruit young men and women,
......NOT FOR VETERAN'S BENEFITS.


"This year, the United States spent nearly as much on its military as ALL other countries combined. No other nation possesses, or aspires to, anything like the reach of American armed forces (NYTimes, 12/26/04)." Militarism is a parasitic industry.
It is 'mega-bucks' for the defense contractors.

IT IS NOT like investing in education, agriculture, health, and the environment, where the return is
HEALTHY & INTELLIGENT CITIZENS.

[biker]

People are not apathetic; they are grimly determined to sustain the fight against an implacable foe.

This will take years.

[avet]

If "PATRIOTISM" is about loyalty of some sort, ....to "WHAT" are we declaring our loyalty???

Most people in America are barely treading water; a lot are downwardly mobile by no fault of their own, their jobs "outsourced" and their workplaces "downsized". Consider too, that most new millionaires got rich by SCREWING lots of other people over, such as, by being executives who profit from the aforementioned "downsizing" and "outsourcing".

It is OUR money they're dealing with; an amount "large enough" to provide health care, decent housing and the needs of EVERY American.

When these needs are absent, PATRIOTISM and DEMOCRACY are also "ABSENT".

PATRIOTISM is "NOT" simply ..."flag waving".

_______________________________________

" The obscene gaps in wealth between rich and poor, for example, are quite AMAZING as well, ...especially in a wealthy society that "claims" to be committed to ...."JUSTICE". "
_______________________________________

The America I love is "NOT" this administration, or any other collections of politicians, or the corporations they serve.

It is "NOT" the policies of this administration, or any other collection of politicians, or the corporations they serve.

[Linda_D]

Originally posted by biker
People are not apathetic; they are grimly determined to sustain the fight against an implacable foe.

This will take years.

What sacrifice have you made for the "war effort", biker? I haven't had to make any, and I don't know anyone else who has unless one of their family or friends is in the military and is/has been or will be fighting in Iraq.

[biker]

Linda,

You didn't read the playbook before posting.

You're supposed to taunt me into enlisting.

[WestSideJohn]

And you're supposed to claim that the war in Iraq is about protecting the United States from the... what's that? Oh, you already did?

[therising]

Originally posted by Boost Buffalo
she would be much busier if she tracked all the senseless highway deaths of over 40000 Americans every year with almost half by drunks, or if she tracked the two hundred thousand women dead by cigarettes every single year. Talk about wasted lives.

But she chose to track the 1828 deaths in two and a half years by our brave warriors who volunteered to protect our country and serve a real purpose, an honorable purpose in the name of America.

good for her...

I can't fathom this logic (which has been used on these boards before, as well)...it's like you're saying "hundreds of thousands of people kill themselves on the road and by smoking, so What's a few extra thousand?"

The most unbelievable hypocrisy of this is that I'll bet you call yourself "Pro-life'!

[Linda_D]

Originally posted by biker
Linda,

You didn't read the playbook before posting.

You're supposed to taunt me into enlisting.

No, you aren't dismissing the war casualties in Iraq by spewing idiotic blather about highway and tobacco deaths.

[Linda_D]

1842 American soldiers have died in the Iraq War as of 8/10/2005, including 78 in June, 54 in July, and 43 in August -- Grim Numbers (http://icasualties.org/oif/)

[Boost Buffalo]

Originally posted by therising
I can't fathom this logic (which has been used on these boards before, as well)...it's like you're saying "hundreds of thousands of people kill themselves on the road and by smoking, so What's a few extra thousand?"



its not like that at all, not even close

[Riven37]

Originally posted by Linda_D
Boostie, since you like to "talk the talk", how 'bout "walkin' the walk"? Why don't you volunteer to take the place of one of the "brave volunteers" who's been there for over a year???

1838 American soldiers have died in the Iraq War as of 8/9/2005, including 78 in June, 54 in July, and 39 in August -- Grim Numbers (http://icasualties.org/oif/)

Minus these men:

The following is a list of U.S. Fatalities who have died in hospitals in Germany and The United States. Some have claimed that The Department of Defense does not report these deaths, they are obviously mistaken.

Date Name Cause Country of Death
08/10/05 Benson, Michael A. Hostile - hostile fire - car bomb USA
08/05/05 Ball Jr., Terry W. Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack USA
08/04/05 Simon, Chad J. Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack USA
07/14/05 Hines Jr., Timothy J. Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack USA
06/21/05 Milev, Marin Milev Non-hostile - vehicle accident (drowning) Germany
06/13/05 Mattek Jr., John J. Hostile - hostile fire - explosion USA
06/03/05 Mendoza, Antonio Hostile - hostile fire - explosion USA
05/24/05 Collins, Randy D. Hostile - hostile fire - mortar attack USA
05/22/05 Seesan, Aaron N. Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack Germany
05/11/05 Schmidt III, John T. Hostile - hostile fire - explosion USA
05/10/05 Bordelon, Michael J. Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack USA
05/02/05 Little, Tommy S. Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack USA
04/12/05 Dickens, Tyler J. Hostile - hostile fire - RPG attack (?) USA
04/09/05 LaWare, Casey M. Non-hostile - building fire Germany
03/04/05 Garceau, Seth K. Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack Germany
03/03/05 Jones, Michael D. Non-hostile - illness USA
01/04/05 Washington, Bennie J. Hostile - hostile fire - RPG attack USA
12/29/04 Nelson, Craig L. Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack USA
12/09/04 Renehan, Kyle J. Hostile - hostile fire - mortar attack Germany
12/01/04 Pena, Javier Obleas-Prado Hostile - hostile fire Germany
11/27/04 Smith, Michael A. Hostile - hostile fire - sniper USA
11/24/04 Nolte, Nicholas S. Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack USA
11/23/04 Edinger, Benjamin C. Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack USA
11/20/04 Heredia, Joseph J. Hostile - hostile fire Germany
11/20/04 Welke, Joseph T. Hostile - hostile fire Germany
11/19/04 Downey, Michael A. Hostile - hostile fire - sniper USA
11/07/04 McVey, Otie Joseph Non-hostile - illness USA
10/22/04 Gadsden, Jonathan E. Hostile - hostile fire USA
10/13/04 Baker, Ronald W. Hostile - hostile fire - car bomb Germany
10/03/04 Pettaway Jr., James L. Non-hostile - vehicle accident USA
09/30/04 Nolan, Allen Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack USA
09/28/04 Prewitt, Tyler D. Hostile - hostile fire - RPG attack Germany
09/19/04 Adams, Brandon E. Hostile - hostile fire - grenade USA
08/09/04 Houghton, Andrew R. Hostile - hostile fire - RPG attack USA
08/05/04 McCune, Donald R. Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack Germany
07/21/04 Engel, Mark E. Hostile - hostile fire USA
07/15/04 Mardis Jr., Paul C. Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack USA
07/02/04 Martin, Stephen G. Hostile - hostile fire - car bomb USA
06/03/04 Bolding, Todd J. Hostile - hostile fire Germany
05/18/04 Chaney, William D. Non-hostile - illness Germany
05/08/04 Holmes, James J. Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack Germany
04/22/04 Dunham, Jason L. Hostile - hostile fire USA
04/20/04 Fox, Bradley C. Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack Germany
03/20/04 Vega, Michael W. Hostile - vehicle accident USA
03/19/04 Matthews, Clint Richard "Bones" Non-hostile - vehicle accident Germany
03/18/04 Sutphin, Ernest Harold Non-hostile - vehicle accident Germany
01/05/04 Frist, Luke P. Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack USA
12/02/03 Young, Ryan C. Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack USA
11/20/03 Tyrrell, Scott Matthew Non-hostile - ordnance accident USA
11/08/03 Jimenez, Linda C. Non-hostile - accidental fall USA
11/06/03 Fisher, Paul F. Hostile - helicopter crash (missile attack) Germany
10/01/03 Ramos, Tamarra J. Non-hostile - unspecified injury USA
09/16/03 Pinkston, Foster Non-hostile - illness USA
09/07/03 Thompson, Jarrett B. Non-hostile - vehicle accident USA
08/17/03 Ivory, Craig S. Non-hostile - illness - heat related Germany
08/14/03 Kirchhoff, David M. Non-hostile - illness - heatstroke Germany
08/06/03 Colunga, Zeferino E. Non-hostile - illness - acute leukemia Germany
07/12/03 Neusche, Joshua M. Non-hostile - illness - pneumonia? Germany
07/08/03 McKinley, Robert L. Non-hostile - illness - heatstroke Germany
07/04/03 Coons, James Curtis Non-hostile - suicide USA
06/18/03 Latham, William T. Hostile - hostile fire USA
06/01/03 Lambert, Jonathan W. Non-hostile - vehicle accident Germany
04/24/03 Jenkins, Troy David Hostile - hostile fire - bomb Germany

[Riven37]

If you must have every death to date I could post them for you but it would be posted on my thread in the highest tradition under USA Politics board.

[therising]

Originally posted by Boost Buffalo
its not like that at all, not even close

Then please explain what you meant by this:

"she would be much busier if she tracked all the senseless highway deaths of over 40000 Americans every year with almost half by drunks, or if she tracked the two hundred thousand women dead by cigarettes every single year. Talk about wasted lives."

What does drunk drivers and smokers have to do with US casualties?
Please explain.

[Riven37]

Originally posted by Linda_D
Boostie, since you like to "talk the talk", how 'bout "walkin' the walk"? Why don't you volunteer to take the place of one of the "brave volunteers" who's been there for over a year???

1838 American soldiers have died in the Iraq War as of 8/9/2005, including 78 in June, 54 in July, and 39 in August -- Grim Numbers (http://icasualties.org/oif/)


Hostile vs Non-Hostle Fatalities By Month
Month Hostile Non Hostile Total
Mar-03 82 10 92
Apr-03 53 27 80
May-03 6 35 41
Jun-03 24 12 36
Jul-03 28 21 49
Aug-03 23 20 43
Sep-03 18 15 33
Oct-03 35 12 47
Nov-03 94 16 110
Dec-04 32 16 48
Jan-04 39 13 52
Feb-04 14 9 23
Mar-04 35 17 52
Apr-04 131 9 140
May-04 65 19 84
Jun-04 45 5 50
Jul-04 45 13 58
Aug-04 63 12 75
Sep-04 74 13 87
Oct-04 58 9 67
Nov-04 129 12 141
Dec-04 58 19 77
Jan-05 74 53 127
Feb-05 42 18 60
Mar-05 33 7 40
Apr-05 46 6 52
May-05 69 19 88
Jun-05 69 14 83
Jul-05 48 10 58
Aug-05 45 3 48

Total 1577 464 2041


Where are you getting your numbers Linda-D ?


Well, like anything else here this post did not post my post right and I tried to delete this post reply but I was not able to because it said I was not a member and I had no permission to delete my own post....Anyways, each column reads to the right maybe this place will get it right soon...

[Riven37]

forget it Linda-D same place...

[biker]

Don't get torqued, Riven.

This thing does not do tables well, but I was able to figure out what your data was saying.

Her numbers follow the same general pattern as yours. Not surprising that hers differ some from yours.

This same dreary repetition though.

I don't remember all the rules in the anti-war Vietnam playbook, but I think they went something like:

1)the US government always lies;
2)the US military is evil;
3)cast anything either one says in the worst light possible;
4)ignore or spin (OK, "sping" wasn't a 60's word) any positive news.

[Riven37]

Originally posted by biker
Don't get torqued, Riven.

This thing does not do tables well, but I was able to figure out what your data was saying.

Her numbers follow the same general pattern as yours. Not surprising that hers differ some from yours.

This same dreary repetition though.

I don't remember all the rules in the anti-war Vietnam playbook, but I think they went something like:

1)the US government always lies;
2)the US military is evil;
3)cast anything either one says in the worst light possible;
4)ignore or spin (OK, "sping" wasn't a 60's word) any positive news.



:D

[iecharlie]

These pigs don't care. They play board games with peoples lives. Iran is next. Thousands of innocent people dying on both sides. It's only the beginning. It will only continue to escalate. How can anyone be pro-war. Sick.

[biker]

Thanks for sharing

[citymouse]

At least in Viet nam there was the facade of stopping the spread of communism.
As unpopular as that war became it still took ten years and many thousands of lives before we came to our senses.
This war was based on a lie (WMD's) and we are in the same pattern as Nam.
I hope it dosen't take as long, or as many deaths before we come to our senses.

[jbinbny]

Originally posted by citymouse
At least in Viet nam there was the facade of stopping the spread of communism.
As unpopular as that war became it still took ten years and many thousands of lives before we came to our senses.
This war was based on a lie (WMD's) and we are in the same pattern as Nam.
I hope it dosen't take as long, or as many deaths before we come to our senses.


I disagree completely!

[citymouse]

Originally posted by jbinbny
I disagree completely! Explain why?
I was of draft age in The Vietnam era. I drew a high lottery number bought had a brother there and he was wounded in action.
He hated being drafted, hated going to Nam and hated getting shot.
My mother hated him being there and thought the war was stupid and a waste of young American lives.
It is a dark stain on American History.
You disagree with that?
You disagree we were there to stop the spread of communism in South East Asia (or so we were told.)?
You disagree that we were there ten years for nothing?
You disagree that we are now involved in a conflict were a good portion of the population resents us being there, is seemingly endless and is wasting young American lives on a dailey basis and we went there under false pretenses, even more so than Nam?
Or do you disagree with the notion that I hope it dosen't take long for us to come to our senses, ten years like nam, and stop wasting young lives for a losing cause?

[jbinbny]

First of all mouse, THERE IS NOT A DRAFT TODAY! UNLIKE VIETNAM, IT IS COMPLETELY AN ALL VOLUNTEER MILITARY! Young men and women join the military for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the benefits they get for their service. But there is a price for those benefits. And that price is that you may very well be called into combat and told to fight and possibly die as a result. I remember this part of my enlistment agreement very well. You hope it doesn't happen, but it very well could.

As far as your brother is concerned, he doesn't sound like the type who would join an all volunteer military today. But because he was drafted, he had to go. And I give him credit for going and serving his country, despite his personal feelings.

A dark stain on American history? Depends on your point of view. If you mean that the US military was called upon to fight and NOT ALLOWED TO WIN , I AGREE!

10 years for nothing? Well it's easy to say that and I can even understand those who feel that way. But it was the indeciveness of the Kennedy, Eisenhower, Johnson and Nixon administrations which one could point to as the main reason for it ending the way it did. That is not the case with this adminstration. They are determined to win this war on terrorism and only time will tell if we are successful.

Wasting lives? Who could be for that? I dont consider war on terrorism as a waste of lives or our time. You do!

I'm not of the mindset that we can bury our head in the sand and hope it all goes away. You are!

I enjoy living my life in a free, safe, secure democratic society! I'm sure you do as well. Are we they only people on this planet who have this right? Do you think the average citizen in some third world country might like that same thing that we so casually take for granted? I say they do. But the difference is that there are forces in the world who want nothing more than to DESTROY THIS COUNTRY AND THE VALUES WE HOLD DEAR. I for one, prefer to take the fight to them before they take it to us here on our own soil. You dont!

But they already did take the fight to us here in the US, didn't they? And the results were catastrophic. And please dont tell me that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had no part in it. You dont know that. If they even allowed those responsible to live and train in Iraq prior to 9/11, they have a hand in it. Under Hussein, terrorists from all over the world were allowed to live, train and hide in Iraq. And in other areas of this world as well. That is a well known, documented fact! I believe this to be true! You don't!

You say we need to come to our senses. I think it's you who needs to come to your senses and see the world as it really is and not in some sort of pacifist, universal brotherhood of man utopian pipe dream you and others on this board seem to be full time residents of.

Ok everyone, all together now..."All we are saying, is give peace a chance". Now pass that doober and let me count the days to my taxpayer funded retirement!

[jbinbny]

Originally posted by iecharlie
These pigs don't care. They play board games with peoples lives. Iran is next. Thousands of innocent people dying on both sides. It's only the beginning. It will only continue to escalate. How can anyone be pro-war. Sick.


Pigs? I assume by the tone of your response your referring to the US goverment.

Yes sir, the US goverment and the President were sitting around one day in good 'ol DC and decided to play a board game. The game was called killing innocent people and it was decided that Iraq was the perfect place.

Etc, Etc....


Mouse, meet your neighbor!

[Boost Buffalo]

Originally posted by jbinbny
First of all mouse, THERE IS NOT A DRAFT TODAY! UNLIKE VIETNAM, IT IS COMPLETELY AN ALL VOLUNTEER MILITARY! Young men and women join the military for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the benefits they get for their service. But there is a price for those benefits. And that price is that you may very well be called into combat and told to fight and possibly die as a result. I remember this part of my enlistment agreement very well. You hope it doesn't happen, but it very well could.

As far as your brother is concerned, he doesn't sound like the type who would join an all volunteer military today. But because he was drafted, he had to go. And I give him credit for going and serving his country, despite his personal feelings.

A dark stain on American history? Depends on your point of view. If you mean that the US military was called upon to fight and NOT ALLOWED TO WIN , I AGREE!

10 years for nothing? Well it's easy to say that and I can even understand those who feel that way. But it was the indeciveness of the Kennedy, Eisenhower, Johnson and Nixon administrations which one could point to as the main reason for it ending the way it did. That is not the case with this adminstration. They are determined to win this war on terrorism and only time will tell if we are successful.

Wasting lives? Who could be for that? I dont consider war on terrorism as a waste of lives or our time. You do!

I'm not of the mindset that we can bury our head in the sand and hope it all goes away. You are!

I enjoy living my life in a free, safe, secure democratic society! I'm sure you do as well. Are we they only people on this planet who have this right? Do you think the average citizen in some third world country might like that same thing that we so casually take for granted? I say they do. But the difference is that there are forces in the world who want nothing more than to DESTROY THIS COUNTRY AND THE VALUES WE HOLD DEAR. I for one, prefer to take the fight to them before they take it to us here on our own soil. You dont!

But they already did take the fight to us here in the US, didn't they? And the results were catastrophic. And please dont tell me that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had no part in it. You dont know that. If they even allowed those responsible to live and train in Iraq prior to 9/11, they have a hand in it. Under Hussein, terrorists from all over the world were allowed to live, train and hide in Iraq. And in other areas of this world as well. That is a well known, documented fact! I believe this to be true! You don't!

You say we need to come to our senses. I think it's you who needs to come to your senses and see the world as it really is and not in some sort of pacifist, universal brotherhood of man utopian pipe dream you and others on this board seem to be full time residents of.

Ok everyone, all together now..."All we are saying, is give peace a chance". Now pass that doober and let me count the days to my taxpayer funded retirement!

Excellent post, jbinbny.

sadly the libs today refuse to put their failed politics aside so they choose to comfort and support the enemy and protest America, just like back in the Nam days. If America were united then, we would've won that war.

In spite of the libs, we'll win this war. We're on to the dispicable libs now.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by jbinbny
Pigs? I assume by the tone of your response your referring to the US goverment.

Yes sir, the US goverment and the President were sitting around one day in good 'ol DC and decided to play a board game. The game was called killing innocent people and it was decided that Iraq was the perfect place.

Etc, Etc....


Mouse, meet your neighbor!

I know you meant to be sarcastic, but your discription of how Bush and buddies got us into this mess sounds about right to me.

[jbinbny]

I'm not surprised!

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by jbinbny
I'm not surprised!

Well jbinbny, I guess we can all thank you now for answering the question of what Bush was thinking when he got us into this quagmire...

Not much, as always!

[biker]

You go JB!

[avet]

Excellent post, atotaltotalfan2001.

"failed politics"?

Why has America become so hated in the last several years?

WORLDS LARGEST EVER PROTEST happened ....to GWB.

Why did a major disaster happen on GWB's watch? They completely changed the policies that were there, in effect, to protect us (put Cheney in charge of Norad - 1st time command OF NORAD was EVER given to a V.P.) What happens? Less than 3 months later WE HAVE A MAJOR ATTACK, AND THEY LET IT HAPPEN!!

We attack Afganistan, and occupy it. The "war on drugs" is more worse than ever. Afganistan is producing MORE DRUGS THAN EVER BEFORE! AND......WE "DON'T" CAPTURE O.B.L., even after he was cornered!!

AMERICA is "broke" & in more debt than EVER before.


KEEP SWATING THOSE "KILLER BEE'S" NESTS with sticks (very, very expensive sticks). Then, capture some of them, & stick them in a bottle, and SHAKE THEM ALL UP !!! Then let em' go - see what happens !!

The "war against terrorism" is EXACTLY like the "war on drugs".

YOU SEEM TO HAVE THE BIGGEST - LONGEST - STICK.
AND YOU LIKE THE COMFORT & SUPPORT "OTHERS" GIVE YOU!

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by avet
Excellent post, atotaltotalfan2001.

"failed politics"?

Why has America become so hated in the last several years?

WORLDS LARGEST EVER PROTEST happened ....to GWB.

Why did a major disaster happen on GWB's watch? They completely changed the policies that were there, in effect, to protect us (put Cheney in charge of Norad - 1st time command OF NORAD was EVER given to a V.P.) What happens? Less than 3 months later WE HAVE A MAJOR ATTACK, AND THEY LET IT HAPPEN!!

We attack Afganistan, and occupy it. The "war on drugs" is more worse than ever. Afganistan is producing MORE DRUGS THAN EVER BEFORE! AND......WE "DON'T" CAPTURE O.B.L., even after he was cornered!!

AMERICA is "broke" & in more debt than EVER before.


KEEP SWATING THOSE "KILLER BEE'S" NESTS with sticks (very, very expensive sticks). Then, capture some of them, & stick them in a bottle, and SHAKE THEM ALL UP !!! Then let em' go - see what happens !!

The "war against terrorism" is EXACTLY like the "war on drugs".

YOU SEEM TO HAVE THE BIGGEST - LONGEST - STICK.
AND YOU LIKE THE COMFORT & SUPPORT "OTHERS" GIVE YOU!

Thank you!

[avet]

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!! ...............BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!

OMG !!! THERE ....EVERYWHERE !!!!
________________________________________
U.S. Figures Show Sharp Global Rise In Terrorism - State Dept. Will Not Put Data in Report
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html

The number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled last year, according to U.S. government figures, a sharp upswing in deadly attacks that the State Department has decided not to make public in its annual report on terrorism due to Congress this week.

"Last year was bad. This year is worse. They are deliberately trying to withhold data because it shows that as far as the war on terrorism internationally, we're losing," said Larry C. Johnson, a former senior State Department counterterrorism official, who first revealed the decision not to publish the data.

In his letter urging Rice to release the data, Waxman said that.....
"the large increases in terrorist attacks reported in 2004 may undermine administration claims of success in the war on terror, but political inconvenience has never been a legitimate basis for withholding facts from the American people."
________________________________________________
Evidence that the U.S. May Be Losing the Global War on Terror
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1501

The Bush administration is attempting to suppress key data showing that its Global War on Terrorism (or GWOT as government bureaucrats have dubbed it) likely has been counterproductive. According to Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst and State Department terrorism expert who still has many sources within the intelligence community, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s office is suppressing data showing that the number of major terrorist attacks worldwide exploded from 175 in 2003 to 625 in 2004, the highest number since the Cold War began to wane in 1985. U.S. officials said that when analysts at the National Counterterrorism Center declined the office of the secretary’s invitation to use a methodology that would reduce the number of terrorist attacks, her office terminated publication of the State Department’s annual “Patterns of Global Terrorism” report.

If the U.S. news media weren’t so timid about covering such explosive facts, perhaps the American public would just say “no” to government policies that endanger Americans and other people everywhere.
____________________________________________
U.S.: Three Years On, War on Terrorism Looks Like a Loser
http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=25437

”We have a stronger jihadi presence in Iraq today than in March 2003,”

”It is hard to find a counterterrorism specialist who thinks that the Iraq War has reduced rather than increased the threat to the United States,”
wrote James Fallows, a prominent national-security journalist

Nor is it only in Iraq that Washington has achieved much less traction than it had hoped. In Afghanistan, most of the country remains under the rule of fractious warlords, whose cultivation of opium has, in just a few short years, reached historic levels, even as the ousted Taliban continue to make inroads in the predominantly Pashtun south and southeast.
______________________________________________
Global terror attacks tripled in 2004
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0428/dailyUpdate.html
______________________________________________
US Losing the War on Terror in Iraq
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article2629.html

How very ironic that the US and Britain invaded Iraq supposedly to disarm it of the very weapons of mass destruction that they had armed it with only two decades ago. Iran today poses a greater threat to the US and to the region due to the fact that it possesses Shahab 3 MRBMs capable of reaching Israel and may well have tactical nuclear weapons which could be mounted atop these missiles.

Last year, President Bush proclaimed to every nation and group in the world that you are either with us in the war on terrorism or against us. If it expects compliance with this global ultimatum by the world’s nation-states, the Administration would do well to stop abetting radical Shiite terrorist groups that comprise the new Iraqi Governing Council and are clearly “against us” to avoid the appearance of a double standard in its ongoing, perpetual “war on terrorism.” The Administration’s support of these groups will lead to a more dangerous and violent rather than a more peaceful Iraq.
_____________________________________________
Bush's Iraq Invasion Hurt War on Terror
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0719-10.htm

"In more than a dozen interviews, experts within and outside the U.S. government laid out a stark analysis of how the war has hampered the campaign against al- Qaida," author Peter Bergen wrote. Not only, they point out, did the war divert resources and attention away from Afghanistan, seriously damaging the prospects of capturing al-Qaida leaders, but it has also opened a new front for terrorists in Iraq and created a new justification for attacking Westerners around the world.

"If the al-Qaida leadership had been wiped out in Afghanistan during the winter of 2001, President Bush might have gone down in history as one of the more adroit wartime presidents. Instead, al-Qaida's leaders and many of its foot soldiers went on to fight another day.
______________________________________________
Occupation Made World Less Safe, Pro-War Institute Says
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/terrorwar/analysis/2004/0526iissreport.htm

The US and British occupation of Iraq has accelerated recruitment to the ranks of Osama bin Laden's terrorist network and made the world a less safe place, according to a leading London-based think-tank.

"Invading Iraq damaged the war on terror, there is no doubt about that. It has strengthened rather than weakened al-Qa'ida."
______________________________________________



******************************
"BRING IT ON" !!!

(watch what you ask for,.....you may just get it)

******************************
Russia: Putin Calls For Withdrawal Timetable For Iraq
19 August 2005
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2005/08/iraq-050819-rferl02.htm

Putin said. "Many Iraqis, we know this well, still consider these forces to be occupiers."

Putin has openly opposed the Iraq war. But this is the first time he has made such a clear-cut statement on the withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq.

Putin’s statement comes just days after Russia carried out military exercises in the Barents Sea during which new intercontinental ballistic missiles were tested.

Russia and China also launched unprecedented joint military exercises yesterday amid U.S. concerns that the two giants might form a military alliance.

[jbinbny]

Originally posted by atotaltotalfan2001
Well jbinbny, I guess we can all thank you now for answering the question of what Bush was thinking when he got us into this quagmire...

Not much, as always!

:rolleyes:

[jbinbny]

Originally posted by avet
Excellent post, atotaltotalfan2001.

"failed politics"?

Why has America become so hated in the last several years?

WORLDS LARGEST EVER PROTEST happened ....to GWB.

Why did a major disaster happen on GWB's watch? They completely changed the policies that were there, in effect, to protect us (put Cheney in charge of Norad - 1st time command OF NORAD was EVER given to a V.P.) What happens? Less than 3 months later WE HAVE A MAJOR ATTACK, AND THEY LET IT HAPPEN!!

We attack Afganistan, and occupy it. The "war on drugs" is more worse than ever. Afganistan is producing MORE DRUGS THAN EVER BEFORE! AND......WE "DON'T" CAPTURE O.B.L., even after he was cornered!!

AMERICA is "broke" & in more debt than EVER before.


KEEP SWATING THOSE "KILLER BEE'S" NESTS with sticks (very, very expensive sticks). Then, capture some of them, & stick them in a bottle, and SHAKE THEM ALL UP !!! Then let em' go - see what happens !!

The "war against terrorism" is EXACTLY like the "war on drugs".

YOU SEEM TO HAVE THE BIGGEST - LONGEST - STICK.
AND YOU LIKE THE COMFORT & SUPPORT "OTHERS" GIVE YOU!


The world's largest protest??? Against GWB??? :eek: But that is so like the left isn't it? More concerned about what the world thinks than what the American citizen thinks. Let them protest all they want. This administration's foreign policy is crafted in Washington D.C. Not UN headquarters in New York, like so many Liberals would like!

Why did a major disaster happen on GWB's watch? Hmm, well let's see. Barely nine months into his first term the worst terrorist attack in US history happens. I guess we could reasonably ask what intelligence the previous administration possessed and if they didn't have any, why not?? A terrorist operation this size needed time, funding and training to carry out to it's successful conclusion. They didn't come up with the idea Jan 21st, 2001 and carry it out on Sept, 11th, 2001. No, I'm sad to say, this operation was at least two years in the making before it happened. The logistics and coordination needed to commandeer 5 jetliners simutaneously and crash them into targets in two different cities and possibly a third makes me wonder where was the CIA, FBI and other intelligence organizations in 1999 and 2000 when these fiendish plots were being hatched.

Could it be that President Clinton was occupied at the time? It's a known fact he spent more time with Monica L. than his CIA director George Tenet. Guess he had more important matters to talk about.

The US is going broke fighting this war? No doubt it costs money to fight a protracted war, install a democratic form of goverment and rebuild another country in the process, but I'm pretty certain we have far more money and resources than any terrorist organization does.

Afganistan is producing more drugs than ever before huh? Do you have proof to back up what you say? If so, let's have it. But if you dont have any proof, and I dont think you do, then what you have to say is really irrelevent.

We didn't capture Osama Bin Laden when we were close and had him cornered? I've heard that as well. Seems this rat was trapped in the mountains on the Afgan/Pakistan border and found another hole to slip thru. Well that was unfortunate for us, but I'm confident we will either capture him or kill him. Preferably the latter.

But I cant help thinking about then President Clinton making the extrordinarily stupid decision to decline having O.B.L handed over to US authorities in the late nineites. It was Sudan, Morocco or Tunisia that had O.B.L and was willing to turn him over to US authorities. But the Clinton Administration declined! And the rest as they say is history!

The war on terrorism is exactly like the war on drugs?? Hmm, I dont see how. But if it is, I take it that you feel it's unwinnable and so we should just do nothing! Yep, that's the answer!!! Do nothing and hope it all goes away! Now that's a policy true leadership would embrace. Or better yet, let our Euro socialist "allies" and the UN handle this problem. It would serve our interests much better huh. And we would all sleep better at night know Kofi and the boys at the UN were dealing with the problem of Islamic terrorism.



No Thanks!

You said keep swatting those bee's nests with our big and expensive sticks, bottle and shake them up and let them go and see what happens.

Hmm, well we all know that swatting at a horde of angy bees with a stick does very little good. We might get a few, but the rest will get us. In most cases, people just run away from the nest. I take it that is what you feel we should do. And as far as shaking them up after their captured and letting them go.


I wouldn't! I'd execute each and every one of them. Every single time! The price for terrorism and terrorist acts committed should be death.!

And if you argue this would be no deterrent because so many of these brainwashed terrorists are willing to commit suicide in the name of their fanatical beliefs, then I guess it's safe to say that it is fruitless to talk to them and there will never be a negotiated settlement.

They understand only one kind of language! We heard them loud and clear and are just giving them what they asked for!

[speaker]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jbinbny
[B]The world's largest protest??? Against GWB??? :eek: But that is so like the left isn't it? More concerned about what the world thinks than what the American citizen thinks. Could it be that President Clinton was occupied at the time? It's a known fact he spent more time with Monica L. than his CIA director George Tenet. Guess he had more important matters to talk about............"

Heeeeere we go again!

"...........The US is going broke fighting this war? No doubt it costs money to fight a protracted war, install a democratic form of goverment and rebuild another country in the process, but I'm pretty certain we have far more money and resources than any terrorist organization does.

Afganistan is producing more drugs than ever before huh? Do you have proof to back up what you say? If so, let's have it. But if you dont have any proof, and I dont think you do, then what you have to say is really irrelevent.

We didn't capture Osama Bin Laden when we were close and had him cornered? I've heard that as well. Seems this rat was trapped in the mountains on the Afgan/Pakistan border and found another hole to slip thru. Well that was unfortunate for us, but I'm confident we will either capture him or kill him. Preferably the latter.

But I cant help thinking about then President Clinton making the extrordinarily stupid decision to decline having O.B.L handed over to US authorities in the late nineites. It was Sudan, Morocco or Tunisia that had O.B.L and was willing to turn him over to US authorities. But the Clinton Administration declined! And the rest as they say is history!...."[B]

How you bush/rush people would LOVE to blame this fiasco on Clinton.

[jbinbny]

I thought I was quite factual.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by speaker
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jbinbny
[B]The world's largest protest??? Against GWB??? :eek: But that is so like the left isn't it? More concerned about what the world thinks than what the American citizen thinks. Could it be that President Clinton was occupied at the time? It's a known fact he spent more time with Monica L. than his CIA director George Tenet. Guess he had more important matters to talk about............"

Heeeeere we go again!

"...........The US is going broke fighting this war? No doubt it costs money to fight a protracted war, install a democratic form of goverment and rebuild another country in the process, but I'm pretty certain we have far more money and resources than any terrorist organization does.

Afganistan is producing more drugs than ever before huh? Do you have proof to back up what you say? If so, let's have it. But if you dont have any proof, and I dont think you do, then what you have to say is really irrelevent.

We didn't capture Osama Bin Laden when we were close and had him cornered? I've heard that as well. Seems this rat was trapped in the mountains on the Afgan/Pakistan border and found another hole to slip thru. Well that was unfortunate for us, but I'm confident we will either capture him or kill him. Preferably the latter.

But I cant help thinking about then President Clinton making the extrordinarily stupid decision to decline having O.B.L handed over to US authorities in the late nineites. It was Sudan, Morocco or Tunisia that had O.B.L and was willing to turn him over to US authorities. But the Clinton Administration declined! And the rest as they say is history!...."[B]

How you bush/rush people would LOVE to blame this fiasco on Clinton.

I don't why, but this guy just can't seem to stop thinking about Clinton's sex life! Seems like there are a fair share of those guys on this board. Not any women, though. At least I think.

[jbinbny]

Originally posted by atotaltotalfan2001
I don't why, but this guy just can't seem to stop thinking about Clinton's sex life! Seems like there are a fair share of those guys on this board. Not any women, though. At least I think.

And that's Bill Clinton's legacy, like it or not.

[biker]

Originally posted by atotaltotalfan2001
I don't why, but this guy just can't seem to stop thinking about Clinton's sex life! Seems like there are a fair share of those guys on this board. Not any women, though. At least I think.

Part of the left's shameful silence on Clinton's treatment of that woman. Especially by the self-proclaimed women's advocacy groups.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by jbinbny
And that's Bill Clinton's legacy, like it or not.

In your mind, it would appear.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by biker
Part of the left's shameful silence on Clinton's treatment of that woman. Especially by the self-proclaimed women's advocacy groups.

Maybe they didn't regard it with the same significance you do. Let's not forget: Clinton wasn't the first president, or guy, to cheat on his wife.

And don't even get me started on Bush and Condi.

[biker]

You've tried that innuendo a few times; it ain't sticking

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by biker
You've tried that innuendo a few times; it ain't sticking

That's what you think.

[jbinbny]

Strictly speaking I think Laura Bush isn't some lifeless cold fish in the sack as Hillary probably is.

Maybe Bill was cut off?

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by biker
You've tried that innuendo a few times; it ain't sticking

I should have asked you which innuendo you were talking about --- the thinking-about-Clinton's-sex-life-way-too-much one, or the Bush Loves Condi one?

I'm entirely serious about the first -- it's very unhealthy to obsess about that......

But I should have put a ;) after the second. It's a joke (although it is a rumor that does keep surfacing)

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by jbinbny
Strictly speaking I think Laura Bush isn't some lifeless cold fish in the sack as Hillary probably is.

Maybe Bill was cut off?


Unhealthy, unhealthy obsession, my friend.

[avet]

jbinbny:
Afganistan is producing more drugs than ever before huh? Do you have proof to back up what you say? If so, let's have it. But if you dont have any proof, and I dont think you do, then what you have to say is really irrelevent.
‘Russia swept by drugs from AFGHANISTAN’
DAILEY TIMES Tuesday, August 23, 2005

Alexander Fyodorov, the acting chief of Russia’s drug agency, said that the amount of heroin seized in Russia MORE THAN DOUBLED in the first 10 months of this year to 2.9 metric tons (3.2 tons) from 1.4 metric tons (1.5 tons) during the same period last year.

Fyodorov said that nearly all heroin flowing to Russia comes from AFGHANISTAN, which has seen a steady rise in drug production. Some 420 metric tons (462 tons) of heroin is expected to be produced in AFGHANISTAN this year, he said.

UN surveys estimate AFGHANISTAN accounted for three-quarters of the world’s opium last year, and the trade brought in US $2.3 billion (...1.7 billion more than half of the nation’s gross domestic product).
_______________________________________________
It's not only the west that suffers

AFGHANISTAN is the source of most of the west's heroin.
80 per cent of western Europe's heroin supply does come from AFGHANISTAN. But while the entire annual consumption of heroin in western Europe amounts to around 120 tons, AFGHANISTAN is estimated to have produced enough opium to make 350 tons of heroin.
________________________________________________
U.S. bombs sow a new crop: Afghan heroin floods market

April 11, 2002--Get ready for a bumper crop of poppies in AFGHANISTAN. Once processed, it will flood the streets of this country with tons of low-priced heroin.

On April 1, a front-page New York Times article reported that U.S. and British officials admit AFGHANISTAN will produce enough opium this year to regain hegemony of the world supply.
But wait a minute. Isn't the Bush administration spending billions of dollars "securing" AFGHANISTAN against those it calls the "bad guys"? And isn't the Bush administration also carrying out a "war on drugs" in Colombia?
The surge in morphine and heroin from U.S.-occupied AFGHANISTAN shows that U.S. military intervention has nothing to do with stopping drugs. On the contrary, U.S. wars since Vietnam have paralleled big increases in narcotics reaching this country.

In fact, the U.S. is giving military and economic aid to the same corrupt and brutal ruling elite in Colombia who owe much of their affluence to cocaine commerce.

Back in AFGHANISTAN, it's an open secret that many of the CIA-backed mercenaries who fought from 1979 until a decade ago to defeat a secular and progressive government were allowed to earn extra cash by growing and selling opium.

Don't expect the "war on drugs" to aim its massive weapons at the new Afghan administration as long as it supports U.S. economic and geopolitical dominion in the region.

Virtually all the heroin hawked on the streets of the English isle comes from AFGHANISTAN.
So when the heroin deluge pours into the U.S. and England, perhaps its domestic casualties should be listed as victims of "friendly fire."
_______________________________________
VIENNA, Austria -- Drug trafficking threatens to undermine stability in AFGHANISTAN and hinder development in Iraq as the two countries attempt to emerge from conflict and forge functioning democracies, a key U.N. drug control body warned in a report released Wednesday.

The International Narcotics Control Board said drug production in AFGHANISTAN was so widespread it "has become a severe threat to this new democracy, as well as the stability and economic recovery of the country as a whole."

Drug production in AFGHANISTAN reached a RECORD LEVEL IN 2004

[avet]

then what you have to say is really irrelevent.
I FIND THESE "FACTS" HIGHLY RELEVANT & VERY DISTURBING.

NOW GIVE ME SOME ANSWERS ......IF YOU CAN
_____________________________________________

in August 2001, immediately after reading a memo entitled:
"Bin Laden determined to strike in US",
President George Bush went bass fishing - and NEVER called a meeting to discuss the issue.

When it comes to going after the men who were behind 9/11 and who continue to wage a jihad against the US, Bush has REPEATEDLY turned a "BLIND EYE" to the forces behind terrorism, SHIELDED the people who funded al-Qaida, obstructed investigations and diverted resources from the battle against it.

17 of the 19 hijackers came from SAUDI ARABIA

55% of all foreign fighters killed in Iraq are SAUDIA

Bush's friendship with the SAUDI Royal Family is well known. A hard hitting story should be done on this with a demand to have these redacted statements to be allowed to be made known. Who are they protecting and why?

One key reason is the Bush-Saudi relationship, the like of which is UNPRECEDENTED in US politics. NEVER before has a president of the US - much less two from the same family - had such close ties with another foreign power (SAUDIA ARABIA).

....the 9/11 commission found, the Bush administration failed "to develop a strategy to counter SAUDI terrorist financing"

we know that the SAUDIS may have played an even bigger role in 9/11 than previously reported

"evidence of official SAUDI support" for at least two of the 19 hijackers was "incontrovertible".

As co-chairman of the joint House-Senate panel investigating 9/11, Graham found his efforts to get to the bottom of the SAUDI role in 9/11 again and again WERE QUASHED by the BUSH administration.

In the end, 27 pages of the report on the role of the SAUDIS in 9/11 were CLASSIFIED by the White House and NOT released to the public.

"There has been a long-term special relationship between the US and SAUDIA ARABIA," he said, "and that relationship has probably REACHED A NEW HIGH under the George W Bush administration, in part because of the long and close family relationship that the Bushes have had with the SAUDI royal family."

"It was as if the president's loyalty lay more with SAUDIA ARABIA than with America's safety."

BOTH presidents Bush had LUCRATIVE STAKES along with the BIN LADENS in CARLYLE CORPORATION, a small private company which has gone on to become one of America's biggest defence contractors.

US agents told to BACK OFF the BIN LADENS
The BBC says that America's special agents BACKED AWAY from the bin Laden family soon after George W Bush became president.

Newsnight says it has uncovered a long history of shadowy connections between the State Department, the CIA and the SAUDIS.

"In SAUDIA ARABIA I was REPEATEDLY ORDERED by high-level State Department officials to ISSUE VISAS to UNQUALIFIED applicants.

The younger Bush made his first million 20 years ago with an oil company partly funded by SALEM BIN LADEN'S chief US representative.

He tells me that while there's ALWAYS been CONSTRAINTS on investigating SAUDIS, under George Bush it's GOTTEN MUCH WORSE.
After the elections, the agencies were told to "BACK OFF" investigating the BIN LADENS and SAUDI royals, and that angered agents.

When Bush headed for the White House, he was backed by a WALL OF MONEY - bent money. Fund-raiser-in-chief for his electoral campaign was ......KENNETH LAY
Bush used to call him ......"KENNY BOY"

"As investigators from 60 Minutes discovered, Halliburton has used an OFFSHORE subsidiary incorporated in the CAYMAN ISLANDS (where the company has no oil and gas construction or engineering operations) to TRADE WITH IRAN, a country that the BUSH administration has described as part of an ........"axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world."

“An NBC News analysis of hundreds of foreign fighters who died in Iraq over the last two years reveals that a majority came from the same country as most of the 9/11 hijackers — SAUDIA ARABIA

"By far the nationality that comes up over and over again is SAUDIA ARABIA," says Evan Kohlmann, an NBC News terrorism expert…”

IF YOU CAN

[steven]

Some of you seem really obsessed with sex. First its clintons penis now its who is better in the sack. hillary or laura.

Im really starting to wonder about some of you guys................
:rolleyes:

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by avet
I FIND THESE "FACTS" HIGHLY RELEVANT & VERY DISTURBING.

NOW GIVE ME SOME ANSWERS ......IF YOU CAN
_____________________________________________

in August 2001, immediately after reading a memo entitled:
"Bin Laden determined to strike in US",
President George Bush went bass fishing - and NEVER called a meeting to discuss the issue.

When it comes to going after the men who were behind 9/11 and who continue to wage a jihad against the US, Bush has REPEATEDLY turned a "BLIND EYE" to the forces behind terrorism, SHIELDED the people who funded al-Qaida, obstructed investigations and diverted resources from the battle against it.

17 of the 19 hijackers came from SAUDI ARABIA

55% of all foreign fighters killed in Iraq are SAUDIA

Bush's friendship with the SAUDI Royal Family is well known. A hard hitting story should be done on this with a demand to have these redacted statements to be allowed to be made known. Who are they protecting and why?

One key reason is the Bush-Saudi relationship, the like of which is UNPRECEDENTED in US politics. NEVER before has a president of the US - much less two from the same family - had such close ties with another foreign power (SAUDIA ARABIA).

....the 9/11 commission found, the Bush administration failed "to develop a strategy to counter SAUDI terrorist financing"

we know that the SAUDIS may have played an even bigger role in 9/11 than previously reported

"evidence of official SAUDI support" for at least two of the 19 hijackers was "incontrovertible".

As co-chairman of the joint House-Senate panel investigating 9/11, Graham found his efforts to get to the bottom of the SAUDI role in 9/11 again and again WERE QUASHED by the BUSH administration.

In the end, 27 pages of the report on the role of the SAUDIS in 9/11 were CLASSIFIED by the White House and NOT released to the public.

"There has been a long-term special relationship between the US and SAUDIA ARABIA," he said, "and that relationship has probably REACHED A NEW HIGH under the George W Bush administration, in part because of the long and close family relationship that the Bushes have had with the SAUDI royal family."

"It was as if the president's loyalty lay more with SAUDIA ARABIA than with America's safety."

BOTH presidents Bush had LUCRATIVE STAKES along with the BIN LADENS in CARLYLE CORPORATION, a small private company which has gone on to become one of America's biggest defence contractors.

US agents told to BACK OFF the BIN LADENS
The BBC says that America's special agents BACKED AWAY from the bin Laden family soon after George W Bush became president.

Newsnight says it has uncovered a long history of shadowy connections between the State Department, the CIA and the SAUDIS.

"In SAUDIA ARABIA I was REPEATEDLY ORDERED by high-level State Department officials to ISSUE VISAS to UNQUALIFIED applicants.

The younger Bush made his first million 20 years ago with an oil company partly funded by SALEM BIN LADEN'S chief US representative.

He tells me that while there's ALWAYS been CONSTRAINTS on investigating SAUDIS, under George Bush it's GOTTEN MUCH WORSE.
After the elections, the agencies were told to "BACK OFF" investigating the BIN LADENS and SAUDI royals, and that angered agents.

When Bush headed for the White House, he was backed by a WALL OF MONEY - bent money. Fund-raiser-in-chief for his electoral campaign was ......KENNETH LAY
Bush used to call him ......"KENNY BOY"

"As investigators from 60 Minutes discovered, Halliburton has used an OFFSHORE subsidiary incorporated in the CAYMAN ISLANDS (where the company has no oil and gas construction or engineering operations) to TRADE WITH IRAN, a country that the BUSH administration has described as part of an ........"axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world."

“An NBC News analysis of hundreds of foreign fighters who died in Iraq over the last two years reveals that a majority came from the same country as most of the 9/11 hijackers — SAUDIA ARABIA

"By far the nationality that comes up over and over again is SAUDIA ARABIA," says Evan Kohlmann, an NBC News terrorism expert…”

IF YOU CAN

Yup, but they still have too much oil for us to mess with.

[avet]

they still have too much oil for us to mess with
Only if we "let things continue" as is.
________________________________________________
Welfare for Gas Guzzlers
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?2830

The carmakers are getting everything they wished for. Under Bush's proposed Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) plan, car mileage rules (unchanged since the mid-1980s) will stay as-is, but light-duty trucks will have to average 22.2 mpg by 2007. The largest SUVs and pickups will continue on their merry way, completely unregulated. The loophole that was supposed to be closed will remain open.

In the penultimate episode of Six Feet Under, a drunken Claire starts pounding on a Chevy Suburban and blaming it for the war in Iraq. She's none too coherent, but she makes more sense than the Bush administration's auto regulators, who according to the New York Times, are preparing to, once again, exempt "Hummer H2s and other huge sport-utility vehicles" from proposed fuel-economy regulations. Why exempt the very vehicles that are most in need of regulation? We're talking about pollution-spewing road hogs weighing more than 8,500 pounds here.

They said it then, and they're repeating it now. Brendan Bell, an associate Washington representative on global warming for the Sierra Club, says, "The Bush administration is giving the Big Three a shovel to dig their own graves with.

What a situation we're in. As fuel prices reach new pinnacles and commentators warn we're close to the peak of oil production, we're working overtime to make sure the vehicles that mainline Saudi crude stay on the road.

We're even subsidizing them through TAX BREAKS and a regulatory pass. The Onion had it right. "President Bush unveiled an aggressive initiative Monday that would make the U.S. free of petroleum dependence by the year 4920, less than three millennia from now," the fake newspaper wrote. It quoted the president as saying, in a Fort Bragg speech, "Our mission is clear: We must free ourselves from dependence on fossil fuels within 85 generations. A cleaner, safer America is my vision. And it is our great, great-great-times-80 grandchildren who will realize that vision."
_______________________________________________

Demand reduction through affordable, efficient vehicles

Except for housing costs, low- and middle-income households in the United States spend more of their earnings on transportation than anything else. High gasoline prices squeeze household budgets in the families least able to adapt and most in need of reliable, affordable transportation.

Instead of helping working families save gas and cash, the president's energy plan REWARDS BIG OIL and gas guzzlers with TAX BREAKS. For example, Hummers, the least efficient vehicles on the road, still get a tax credit of $25,000 compared to the $2,000 credit for the most efficient hybrids on the road, and the Republican House energy bill would FORCE TAXPAYERS to compensate rich oil companies for leases that cannot be developed. Although the president has recently proposed to raise the hybrid credit to $4,000, this will not help drivers that CANNOT AFFORD, or DO NOT qualify for credit, to purchase a new car, leaving them with few options to mitigate volatile gasoline prices.

[biker]

There have been several posts over the past few months citing the military failing to meet its recruitment goals as evidence of a widespread, growing disillusionment wtith the war.

About five weeks ago, I read that the military was putting in place a series of bonuses and pay increases to deal with that. I waited to see what the effect might be.

The services continue to miss their targets, albeit by decreasing percentages.

The real story went unreported until yesterday.

Re-enlistment rates are at record levels, more than off-setting the recruitment shortfalls.

As these are already-trained, experienced troops, the calibre of the military as a fighting force is better than it would have been had it merely continued meeting recruitment goals.

If those who cited the falling recruitment levels as proof of disillusionment with the war, does the unprecedented retention rate portray support for the war from those who know it best?

[jbinbny]

Biker,

I heard the same thing. Recruitment levels are above the goals set by each service. But if you listen to some people on the left, our soldiers are leaving in droves and no one will go near a military recruiter.

The BS we get from the left is really getting old and tired. Like their party!

[jbinbny]

Originally posted by avet
jbinbny:

‘Russia swept by drugs from AFGHANISTAN’
DAILEY TIMES Tuesday, August 23, 2005

Alexander Fyodorov, the acting chief of Russia’s drug agency, said that the amount of heroin seized in Russia MORE THAN DOUBLED in the first 10 months of this year to 2.9 metric tons (3.2 tons) from 1.4 metric tons (1.5 tons) during the same period last year.

Fyodorov said that nearly all heroin flowing to Russia comes from AFGHANISTAN, which has seen a steady rise in drug production. Some 420 metric tons (462 tons) of heroin is expected to be produced in AFGHANISTAN this year, he said.

UN surveys estimate AFGHANISTAN accounted for three-quarters of the world’s opium last year, and the trade brought in US $2.3 billion (...1.7 billion more than half of the nation’s gross domestic product).
_______________________________________________
It's not only the west that suffers

AFGHANISTAN is the source of most of the west's heroin.
80 per cent of western Europe's heroin supply does come from AFGHANISTAN. But while the entire annual consumption of heroin in western Europe amounts to around 120 tons, AFGHANISTAN is estimated to have produced enough opium to make 350 tons of heroin.
________________________________________________
U.S. bombs sow a new crop: Afghan heroin floods market

April 11, 2002--Get ready for a bumper crop of poppies in AFGHANISTAN. Once processed, it will flood the streets of this country with tons of low-priced heroin.

On April 1, a front-page New York Times article reported that U.S. and British officials admit AFGHANISTAN will produce enough opium this year to regain hegemony of the world supply.
But wait a minute. Isn't the Bush administration spending billions of dollars "securing" AFGHANISTAN against those it calls the "bad guys"? And isn't the Bush administration also carrying out a "war on drugs" in Colombia?
The surge in morphine and heroin from U.S.-occupied AFGHANISTAN shows that U.S. military intervention has nothing to do with stopping drugs. On the contrary, U.S. wars since Vietnam have paralleled big increases in narcotics reaching this country.

In fact, the U.S. is giving military and economic aid to the same corrupt and brutal ruling elite in Colombia who owe much of their affluence to cocaine commerce.

Back in AFGHANISTAN, it's an open secret that many of the CIA-backed mercenaries who fought from 1979 until a decade ago to defeat a secular and progressive government were allowed to earn extra cash by growing and selling opium.

Don't expect the "war on drugs" to aim its massive weapons at the new Afghan administration as long as it supports U.S. economic and geopolitical dominion in the region.

Virtually all the heroin hawked on the streets of the English isle comes from AFGHANISTAN.
So when the heroin deluge pours into the U.S. and England, perhaps its domestic casualties should be listed as victims of "friendly fire."
_______________________________________
VIENNA, Austria -- Drug trafficking threatens to undermine stability in AFGHANISTAN and hinder development in Iraq as the two countries attempt to emerge from conflict and forge functioning democracies, a key U.N. drug control body warned in a report released Wednesday.

The International Narcotics Control Board said drug production in AFGHANISTAN was so widespread it "has become a severe threat to this new democracy, as well as the stability and economic recovery of the country as a whole."

Drug production in AFGHANISTAN reached a RECORD LEVEL IN 2004


Are you for real? I'll consider the source if you dont mind. "The acting chief of Russia's Drug Agency"?? The "International Narcotics Control Board"?? And of course our all time favorite..The UN.

If nothing else, this post gave me a big laugh!

[lcm]

Please dont insult Laura....she is a pretty apolitical first lady

She supports her husband....but I dont hold her accountabile for what her husband does....she knows he is pretty much a bull in a china store.

And if you look at how the Clintons and the Bushes raised their children....they are really not that different.

Personally I like Laura...I think she is a good first Lady right up there with the best of them.

And lets leave their personal lives .... personal.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by lcm
Please dont insult Laura....she is a pretty apolitical first lady

She supports her husband....but I dont hold her accountabile for what her husband does....she knows he is pretty much a bull in a china store.

And if you look at how the Clintons and the Bushes raised their children....they are really not that different.

Personally I like Laura...I think she is a good first Lady right up there with the best of them.

And lets leave their personal lives .... personal.

Wow. Where were you during the Clinton wars?

How about all of those attacks on Hillary that little to do with her record and all to do with this incredible personal animosity toward her?

After all, by your definition she is a feminist. I have no idea if that is true, but that is a personal insult -- one that involves everything from this link you've made from lesbians to feminisim (and if your sex life isn't personal, what is?) to not being a good mother (again, how would you know something so personal?).

Hypocrite.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by biker
There have been several posts over the past few months citing the military failing to meet its recruitment goals as evidence of a widespread, growing disillusionment wtith the war.

About five weeks ago, I read that the military was putting in place a series of bonuses and pay increases to deal with that. I waited to see what the effect might be.

The services continue to miss their targets, albeit by decreasing percentages.

The real story went unreported until yesterday.

Re-enlistment rates are at record levels, more than off-setting the recruitment shortfalls.

As these are already-trained, experienced troops, the calibre of the military as a fighting force is better than it would have been had it merely continued meeting recruitment goals.

If those who cited the falling recruitment levels as proof of disillusionment with the war, does the unprecedented retention rate portray support for the war from those who know it best?

Right. So what you're saying is career-military types aren't deciding to switch careers now that the government is sweetening the pot (which the government absolutely should!!!)

The military is what they do for a living. Doesn't have anythng to do with whether this war should have ever even happened or the general public's feelings about it.

When new recruitment is down, IMO, that shows people outside the military have trouble with the war.

By the way, the military did a better job of meeting its quotas recently -- but that wasn't surprising.

Kids were out of school and easily accessible. From what I understand, the military's summer numbers are always better.

And let's no forget how the much military has lowered it's own standards in order to reach those quotas.

Sorry Biker. Your argument is full of holes.

[WestSideJohn]

I like Laura Bush quite a bit. Unfortuately, a lot of people who disagree with her husband's policies choose to make Laura the target of their scorn. It can't be easy for her, but she handles herself with class and dignity. Kudos to her. And I agree with Icm that the personal lives of a president, first lady and their children should be kept personal.

The Bush girls aren't doing anything that many of us didn't do when we were their age. Cut them a break. And those who made fun of Chelsea Clinton's looks are simply below contempt.

[avet]

Originally posted by jbinbny
____________________________________________
Are you for real? I'll consider the source if you dont mind. "The acting chief of Russia's Drug Agency"?? The "International Narcotics Control Board"?? And of course our all time favorite..The UN.

If nothing else, this post gave me a big laugh!
____________________________________________

I know YOU are "for real" ! Very disturbingly ..."real".

You & your kind changed & modified the working processes of our defensive system (NORAD) which WAS WORKING previously, & stopped very high "KEY" investigations & ALLOWED an "attack" upon our shores that cost us thousands of lives.
Your kind couldn't ..."envision it" EVER happining - despite "many warnings".
----YET----
You & your kind ...."HAVE PROFITED FROM IT"

You & your kind have created a real "world class" mess & drove this nation into an un-necessary invasion based on "lies", ...that created an un-escapable "****hole" that has NO EASY WAY OUT.
----YET----
You & your kind ...."WILL PROFIT FROM IT"

You & your kind have cost us MEGA-BILLIONS of tax dollars so far - & NOTHING your kind has tried, has come close to "working".
It will cost us taxpayers BILLIONS & BILLIONS "MORE" tax dollars - just to keep the Iraq from being completely over run by huge groups of more terrorists.
----YET----
You & your kind ...."WILL PROFIT FROM IT"

You & your kind have cut VA funding, despite making troops serve multiple tours
---YET---
have given utter "complete" protection & huge tax breaks to the monopolies "profiting" from the mess "they created"

You & your kind want it to be a "NEVER ENDING" fight against terrorism
----YET----
You & your kind ....WILL NEVER serve your country
----AND----
"WILL PROFIT FROM IT"
____________________________

THAT SIR, IS FOR ....."VERY REAL"
---AND---
I SEE NOTHING "LAUGHABLE" ABOUT IT AT ALL !!!
_______________________________________________
U.S. Gov Info / Resources

Afghanistan On Verge of Becoming a 'Narcotics State'
From Robert Longley,

State Dept. report shows Afghan opium production TRIPLED since 2003
Dateline: March 2005
After three years under a pro-U.S. government, Afghanistan stands "on the verge of becoming a narcotics state," according to a recent State Department report.
In a presidential report, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice informed Congress that the area of Afghanistan devoted to cultivation of the opium poppy -- the raw material of heroin -- has more than tripled, to 510,000 acres, since 2003.
The report estimates Afghanistan's current annual opium production at 5,445 tons, some 17 times more than second-place Myanmar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Gov Info / Resources

War against terror conflicting with war against drugs
Shielded by the ongoing war against embedded terrorists, Afghanistan's opium poppy growers were able to more than DOUBLE production during 2003, according to the White House's Office of Drug Control Policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



I was going to post these sources before, but, I considered ..."the source"
________________________________________________

In a presidential report, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice informed Congress that.....
________________________________________________

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by WestSideJohn
I like Laura Bush quite a bit. Unfortuately, a lot of people who disagree with her husband's policies choose to make Laura the target of their scorn. It can't be easy for her, but she handles herself with class and dignity. Kudos to her. And I agree with Icm that the personal lives of a president, first lady and their children should be kept personal.

The Bush girls aren't doing anything that many of us didn't do when we were their age. Cut them a break. And those who made fun of Chelsea Clinton's looks are simply below contempt.

I've always thought the first family's personal lives should be kept private, unless they thrust themselves into the political arena or do something soooo boneheaded or downright illegal that it rises to the level of news.

But it just amazes me that after years of pillorying Hillary Clinton (though not her daughter really), people suddenly think it's sooo bad to say unpleasant things about Mrs. Bush.

And frankly, I haven't seen or heard much about her that was a personal attack.

In fact, the only really nasty thing I've heard about Laura Bush was on this board, when someone -- JB, think it was -- turned her into a sexual object.

But perhaps these belated feelings of protectiveness for the First Lady (and family) have to do with Laura Bush's persona as the traditional, stay-at-home, meek, never say anything controversial mother and wife.

Hillary Clinton, by contrast, was always outspoken and relished her strength and capability -- someone whose ambitions extended beyond being a homemaker.

Mrs. Bush hides her abilities, just like good little girls have been taught to do, IMO.

I read this somewhere and I'm posting it because it relates my feelings more clearly than I can:


Just like Sara Lee, nobody doesn't like Laura Bush. I like Laura Bush. I've yet to meet anyone who doesn't. But she's particularly beloved by Republicans because of what she represents. Barbara Bush was a traditionalist feminine icon, to be sure, but she was also of an age when American women didn't have a lot of other choices. Laura is of a different generation. She could have followed the path that Hillary Clinton did; she's roughly the same age as Hillary (only four years older), and she certainly seems bright and capable enough to do anything she cares to. But she chose to follow a more traditional route. She chooses not to makes waves in her public utterances. She chooses to deflect the spotlight, rather than court it. She chooses to stand loyally beside her husband and be a classic First Lady. What a perfect symbol! What a great model to show to traditionalist male voters who wish the women would quit whining and get back to cleaning the bathroom!

[Stevenco]

What does the rising have to do with it?

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by atotaltotalfan2001
I've always thought the first family's personal lives should be kept private, unless they thrust themselves into the political arena or do something soooo boneheaded or downright illegal that it rises to the level of news.

But it just amazes me that after years of pillorying Hillary Clinton (though not her daughter really), people suddenly think it's sooo bad to say unpleasant things about Mrs. Bush.

And frankly, I haven't seen or heard much about her that was a personal attack.

In fact, the only really nasty thing I've heard about Laura Bush was on this board, when someone -- JB, think it was -- turned her into a sexual object.

But perhaps these belated feelings of protectiveness for the First Lady (and family) have to do with Laura Bush's persona as the traditional, stay-at-home, meek, never say anything controversial mother and wife.

Hillary Clinton, by contrast, was always outspoken and relished her strength and capability -- someone whose ambitions extended beyond being a homemaker.

Mrs. Bush hides her abilities, just like good little girls have been taught to do, IMO.

I read this somewhere and I'm posting it because it relates my feelings more clearly than I can:


Just like Sara Lee, nobody doesn't like Laura Bush. I like Laura Bush. I've yet to meet anyone who doesn't. But she's particularly beloved by Republicans because of what she represents. Barbara Bush was a traditionalist feminine icon, to be sure, but she was also of an age when American women didn't have a lot of other choices. Laura is of a different generation. She could have followed the path that Hillary Clinton did; she's roughly the same age as Hillary (only four years older), and she certainly seems bright and capable enough to do anything she cares to. But she chose to follow a more traditional route. She chooses not to makes waves in her public utterances. She chooses to deflect the spotlight, rather than court it. She chooses to stand loyally beside her husband and be a classic First Lady. What a perfect symbol! What a great model to show to traditionalist male voters who wish the women would quit whining and get back to cleaning the bathroom!

P.S.

Should anyone out there doubt me, here is a little ditty popular back in those days:

"She goes to state dinners with her lesbian friends,
Makes big investments with high dividends,
Forgets to pay taxes but then makes amends,
That's why the First Lady is a tramp."
-Don Imus

[biker]

Originally posted by atotaltotalfan2001

When new recruitment is down, IMO, that shows people outside the military have trouble with the war.


Another view I heard this weekend is that with a strong job market, there are strong employment alternatives.

Philosophical considerations are a minor factor as to whether military recruitment is up or down.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by biker
Another view I heard this weekend is that with a strong job market, there are strong employment alternatives.

Philosophical considerations are a minor factor as to whether military recruitment is up or down.



I thought your whole point was that the military meeting its recruitment goals was proof of public support for the war in Iraq.

Okay, so if recruitment has nothing to do with support for this war, and the opinion polls show time and again that the majority of those questioned believe it was wrong to start it and it is being handled poorly, where is evidence that the country is on board with this war?

[Stevenco]

greed oil money power control and death:)

[biker]

Originally posted by Stevenco
greed oil money power control and death:)

OK, but what's the downside.

[Stevenco]

Originally posted by biker
OK, but what's the downside.

the death of innocent people

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by biker
OK, but what's the downside.

And yet again, Biker, I await a reply. By that I mean one that doesn't fall back on tired cliches like:

1. Clinton's sex life ( how that would apply, I don't know. But I have no doubt you'd manage);

2. "Shame on you" (meaning critics of the war). You are undermining our soliders etc. etc. etc.

3. Democrats, i.e. liberals (you think the two go hand and hand. wrong.) are to blame for everything and will soon be vanquished by the righteous power of the GOP.

Your silence speaks volumes.

[therising]

Originally posted by biker
Another view I heard this weekend is that with a strong job market, there are strong employment alternatives.

Philosophical considerations are a minor factor as to whether military recruitment is up or down.

Which does raise another good issue - Who are these young men and women that are fighting the war??

Senator's sons and daughters? Sons of bank CEO's and Wall Street traders? Doctors and lawyer's kids? Of course not.

The war is being fought by the children of the middle class and under-privileged. The kids who get out of high school, don't want to go to college and are lured by the "Be All You Can Be" ads. Maybe they join the Service in order to learn a trade. Or because they're told they're "not college material".

THESE are the kids the war protestors are fighting for, and the fact that people see this as "anti-American" is mind boggling.

[Stevenco]

Originally posted by atotaltotalfan2001
And yet again, Biker, I await a reply. By that I mean one that doesn't fall back on tired cliches like:

1. Clinton's sex life ( how that would apply, I don't know. But I have no doubt you'd manage);

2. "Shame on you" (meaning critics of the war). You are undermining our soliders etc. etc. etc.

3. Democrats, i.e. liberals (you think the two go hand and hand. wrong.) are to blame for everything and will soon be vanquished by the righteous power of the GOP.

Your silence speaks volumes.

While your waiting, you might as well use that time wisely and wait for the Buffalo Sabres to win the SuperBowl. (watch someone correct this)

That's all they have is these stupid cliches. So that's all you'll get.
"Uh, Duh... You must be anti American if you want these kids to come home...uh, dih. ..my drool cup is all filled up again."

[biker]

People sleep peaceably at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
Orwell

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by biker
Orwell

Just a variation of your "shame on you" line....

[avet]

"WHISTLEBLOWERS" NOT ALLOWED !!

Halliburton Critic Demoted by Army
August, 29 2005

This lady is just trying to do her job, as she has for twenty years, reviewing contracts for viability and due process. When she saw the discrepancies with the Halliburton and KBR contracts, she spoke out, doing her job. Now she is being censured for it.

When Greenhouse entered the general's office, he handed her a letter that explained she was being DEMOTED for poor performance—a curious indictment, given that she'd received high performance ratings before the war.
------------------------------------------------------------------

The more you dig the more you find out that the big company's like ABB, KBR, Halliburton and Monsanto, who are CONNECTED to Bush, Rummsfeld, Cheney and a bulkload of other people in the Bush administration, are all named in even more cases concerning irregularities with handing outs of contracts, missing money, less then quality products(Aspartama, Nutrasweet, Monsanto GM foods and products) and OUTRAGIOUS lawsuits (that they actualy win, like Monsanto sueing farmers for technology theft by reseeding)

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, the graft is ...RIGHT OUT FRONT, no apologies for "ANYTHING",... "anywhere".

And people ..... KEEP DEFENDING THIS TYPE OF BS GOING ON !!!
_________________________________________

THE human cost of the more than 2,000 American military personnel killed and 14,500 wounded so far in Iraq and Afghanistan is all too apparent. But the financial toll is still largely hidden from public view and, like the suffering of those who have lost loved ones, will persist long after the fighting is over.

The cost goes well beyond the more than $250 BILLION already spent on military operations and reconstruction. Basic running costs of the current conflicts are $6 BILLION a month - a figure that reflects the Pentagon's "UNPRECENDENTED" reliance on EXPENSIVE PRIVATE contractors. Other factors keeping costs high include inducements for recruits and for military personnel serving second and third deployments, extra pay for reservists and members of the National Guard, as well as more than $2 BILLION a year in additional foreign aid to Jordan, Pakistan, Turkey and others to reward their cooperation in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill for repairing and replacing military hardware is $20 BILLION a year, according to figures from the Congressional Budget Office.

But the biggest long-term costs are disability and health payments for returning troops, which will be incurred even if hostilities were to stop tomorrow. The United States currently pays more than $2 BILLION in disability claims per year for 159,000 veterans of the 1991 gulf war, even though that conflict lasted only five weeks, with 148 dead and 467 wounded. Even assuming that the 525,000 American troops who have so far served in Iraq and Afghanistan will require treatment only on the same scale as their predecessors from the gulf war, these payments are likely to run at $7 BILLION a year for the next 45 years.

All of this spending will need to be financed by adding to the federal debt. Extra interest payments will total $200 BILLION or more even if the borrowing is repaid quickly. Conflict in the Middle East has also played a part in WAY MORE than doubling the price of oil from $30 a barrel just prior to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 to $70 a barrel today. Each $5 increase in the price of oil REDUCES our national income by about $17 BILLION a year.

Even by this simple yardstick, if the American military presence in the region lasts another five years, the total outlay for the war could stretch to more than $1.3 TRILLION , or...

$11,300 for every household in the United States.
_________________________________________

FYI - FACT:

More journalists have been killed in Iraq since the war began in March 2003 than during the 20 years of conflict in Vietnam, media rights group Reporters Without Borders (RSF) said on Sunday.

Since U.S. forces and its allies launched their campaign in Iraq on March 20, 2003, 66 journalists and their assistants have been killed, RSF said.
The latest casualty was a Reuters Television soundman who was shot dead in Baghdad on Sunday while a cameraman with him was wounded and then detained by U.S. soldiers.

The death toll in Iraq compares with a total of 63 journalists in Vietnam, but which was over a period of 20 years from 1955 to 1975, the Paris-based organisation that campaigns to protect journalists said on its Web site.

[biker]

Originally posted by avet
More journalists have been killed in Iraq since the war began in March 2003 than during the 20 years of conflict in Vietnam, media rights group Reporters Without Borders (RSF) said on Sunday.

Since U.S. forces and its allies launched their campaign in Iraq on March 20, 2003, 66 journalists and their assistants have been killed, RSF said.
The latest casualty was a Reuters Television soundman who was shot dead in Baghdad on Sunday while a cameraman with him was wounded and then detained by U.S. soldiers.

The death toll in Iraq compares with a total of 63 journalists in Vietnam, but which was over a period of 20 years from 1955 to 1975, the Paris-based organisation that campaigns to protect journalists said on its Web site.


So your point is the Islamofacists aren't as medi-savvy as the VC?

That they really are hate-filled fanatics who will slit anyone's throat whether they are provoked or not?