Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: geode00 who wrote (205135)	10/4/2006 7:34:25 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) of 281500

Geode, When quarter of the dead were not due to hostile action, it's hard to think that the war is all that severe as military conflicts go. In fact, it has been quite a successful foray by the USA, with limited casualties and some success. Whether the successes are worth the cost is debatable. To have only 3000 soldiers killed after 4 years of war, is not exactly a major loss. It's trivial as wars go. I know it's unfashionable to put dollars on things, but at $300 billion for the war, that's $100 million per dead soldier. Soldiers are not worth $100 million. Adding in the maimed, would make it more like $30 million per dead and maimed. So, the greater problem is the money down the drain. [If $300 bn is about how much has been spent and committed - survivor long-term payments etc] People who say they don't put $ on people and their lives are hypocrites and stupid. They do, whether they admit it or not. Geode, I predict, is one of those hypocrites. Mqurice

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next